The boston tea party was a tightly knit elitist band of liberty minded folk who dressed up as the favorite enemy of the people at the time and destroyed the british east india co’s inventory of tea. Tea was the choice product because of the symbolc tax that accompanied the purchase of it. It was the act of destroying the inventory of a monopolistic oppressor.
They were able to benefeit from this, more or less, because they were the barons revolting from the British and could make the money that would have gone to the state while collecting positive public support and being able to form society around their interests..
Is there anything even remotely similar that would be possible today?
It would be comparable to not paying property tax or social security. But we don’t have that sense of urgency that our Founders had, and sad as it is, generations have gone by where the acceptance of fascism is more and more tempting to the masses. The reason is because they have the chance to be lazy and not work for anything. There truly is a duality amongst the workers and the users.
I hate to admit this, but we will probably have to lose our country before people will begin wanting it back and fight for it. To keen people, we resist in the most peaceful way possible. Yet our Founders are praised for their in-your-face methods such as the Boston Tea Party. Plain and simply, nobody has the balls to do anything remotely of that caliber today; otherwise it would have been done.
A recent lewrockwell.com article writes the the Boston Tea Party was a protest against lower taxes. John Hancock was a tea smuggler. The British had recently lowered their taxes on tea, making it cheaper now than Hancock’s smuggled tea. He organized the tea party to eliminate his competition.
“A recent lewrockwell.com article writes the the Boston Tea Party was a protest against lower taxes. John Hancock was a tea smuggler. The British had recently lowered their taxes on tea, making it cheaper now than Hancock’s smuggled tea. He organized the tea party to eliminate his competition.”
I’ve heard that before. His competition was a monopoly. Can you blame him? He was banking until they stopped taxing them, but after their inventory is destroyed he can sell cheaper and get all of their business. The Sons of Liberty were badass. Either way the British East India Company was a monopoly and we could look at Hancock as trying to sell weed in modern terms. The drug cartels that situation aligns with Hancocks back then isn’t quite as positive. At least Hancock is noble, in my opinion. And the BEICo forced MA to buy certain quantities of tea didn’t they? Fixing prices? Didn’t they force VA to buy slaves? like they did china and india with opium?