From: Umair Chachar <[email protected]> @Jim:
""THAT doesn't make a bit of sense." >I'm just saying that anarco-socialism is very paradoxical to itself since the >idea of socialism depends on some form of government in itself (usually with >extended powers over production, distribution, etc). And that anarchy doesn't >fit with it properly. I was agreeing with you, that "anarcho-socialist" makes no sense. Generally, the "left" cannot be left without advocating for a big government that forces people to obey. >>"My solution should be far faster. How bloody it will be, it's hard to say. >>People have grudges, in many cases for excellent reasons. " >Your solution is in the link above? Yes, it is a concept that I called "Assassination Politics". It will get rid of all government (certainly as we know it), thus producing "anarchy", yet not allowing the "chaos" ordinarily imagined by people. >>"I have long objected to the way people use the term "capitalism". >>Capitalism is merely the 1800's term for "crowd-funding" of business. Great >>advance, then. Problem is, people use that term when what they really mean >>is "free market". And no, we don't have anything close to a free market >>today, in America or other Western nations. " >That's true, free market/enterprise has been corrupted in every nation on this >world. I personally see a free market system to yield good results for the >well-being of a country it is allowed to stay free. The source for the Whisky Rebellion in America, shortly after the American Revolution, was the biased way the government taxed alcohol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion Today, that's called "Crony Capitalism". This shows why the existence of a "government" cannot be tolerated. Jim Bell >From that article: Western grievances The population of Western Pennsylvania was 17,000 in 1790.[13] Among the farmers in the region, the whiskey excise was immediately controversial, with many people on the frontier arguing that it unfairly targeted westerners.[14] Whiskey was a popular drink, and farmers often supplemented their incomes by operating small stills.[15] Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers.[16] Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, so whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an income tax that wealthier easterners did not pay.[17]Small-scale farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east. There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat fee or paying by the gallon. Large distillers produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. The more efficient they became, the less tax per gallon they would pay (as low as 6 cents, according to Hamilton). Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them year-round at full capacity, so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon (9 cents), which made them less competitive.[18] The regressive nature of the tax was further compounded by an additional factor: whiskey sold for considerably less on the cash-poor Western frontier than in the wealthier and more populous East. This meant that, even if all distillers had been required to pay the same amount of tax per gallon, the small-scale frontier distillers would still have to remit a considerably larger proportion of their product's value than larger Eastern distillers. Small-scale distillers believed that Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians.[19] However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document".[20] Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage that the excise gave them and they supported it.[21]Other aspects of the excise law also caused concern. The law required all stills to be registered, and those cited for failure to pay the tax had to appear in distant Federal, rather than local courts. The only Federal courthouse was in Philadelphia, some 300 miles away from the small frontier settlement of Pittsburgh. From the beginning, the Federal government had little success in collecting the whiskey tax along the frontier. Many small western distillers simply refused to pay the tax. Federal revenue officers and local residents who assisted them bore the brunt of the protester's ire. Tax rebels harassed several whiskey tax collectors and threatened or beat those who offered them office space or housing. As a result, many western counties never had a resident Federal tax official.[22]In addition to the whiskey tax, westerners had a number of other grievances with the national government, chief among which was the perception that the government was not adequately protecting the residents living in western frontier.[22] The Northwest Indian War was going badly for the United States, with major losses in 1791. Furthermore, westerners were prohibited by Spain (which then owned Louisiana) from using the Mississippi River for commercial navigation. Until these issues were addressed, westerners felt that the government was ignoring their security and economic welfare. Adding the whiskey excise to these existing grievances only increased tensions on the frontier.[23]
