The Repeat of History
Once upon a time, the government hit on a what it thought was a great idea. It decided to force people to buy a product that was essential only through approved government exchanges and they also made sure that the product that they now required the people to buy through those approved exchanges was taxed.
Sure, that’s a simplified version of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare (He loves that name!). But did you know that it’s an even more accurate description of another government plan to control commerce and tax it?
To Obamacare, much opposition has arisen, but sadly, even more acquiescence has ruled, whether overtly or covertly. But to the first great attempt, much violent opposition took to the streets. Government bureaucrats were burned and hung in effigy, their homes were ransacked, they were forced to publically resign their positions as government agents. Moreover, when they did yield, they were expected to board a ship and leave, and never come back, the high price for having cooperated with a government willing to tax its subjects in violation of its constitution.
It remains odd to me what our forefathers were willing to do, the lengths to which they would go, to protest and overturn a governmental policy they hated, in this case, the Stamp Act of 1763, given our reticence to seemingly even speak against the AFA. When (or if) you read the accounts of the opposition to the Stamp Act Taxation, and you discover the real source of the phrase “taxation without representation,” you may find yourself quite surprised at the kind of people we once were.
It’s almost like my constant complaint about New Yorkers, who once upon a time would have told any Mayor who told them what they could drink or how much to keep walking when he reached the end of the pier on the Hudson River. Today, they bleat and elect a self-described Socialist to rule over them and keep them safe from horse drawn carriages.
I have given Walter Williams words of last week a great deal of consideration, and I am coming around to the idea that there are two distinct countries developing here, and eventually we will have to divide or one will have to conquer the other. In 1775 that exact same choice was laid before King George III, he chose conquest and lost his Empire. What a newly divided country would look like physically I have no clue. What it would look like politically is a little more clear to me. As the nation divides along ideological lines, the frictions and possessions would cause inevitable conflicts. It’s enough to make a Patriot weep.
The only real solution, to maintain the Union, is remember that without that Union we can accomplish nothing of any real value to humanity. But how do we maintain Union in the face of tyranny?
That question was asked of our forefathers.
Do we have to answer it again?