http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard1.html
$
--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Well the premise is actually wrong, it was not taxation with
> representation because the small distilling farmers did not have
> representation or their represenation was so diluated by a a
majority
> rule in the state Assembly and Congress that the representation
was
> nullified. Was this tax in the begining actually passed by
Congress
> and if so with the greater represenation at the time how did it
> manage to pass? I heard that at one time House members could
> fillibuster like Senate
> members.
> Antifederalist did think that even 1 representive for every
> 30,000 people was to weak but even if you have 1 for 10,000 if you
> did not have the state legislator doing its job censoring their US
> Senators and you have simple majority rule in Congress or just
60%
> to break a fillibuster you are going to have under represenation,
the
> small distlling farmers could have good represenation in the state
> legistor but majority rule in Congress weakens
> that.
> Didn't the great economiist Kurt Wicksell suggest that a tax
> should never be implemented or increased unless there is at least
a
> 80% approval of
> representives?
> Is it true that very few of the tax rebels were
convicted
> because most of the juries refused refused to do so? Now if some
> tared and feathered tax collectors or burn buildings it is likely
> some juries would not approve of that.--- In
> [email protected], "goldrecordings" <stark9@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "hrearden_hr" <HRearden@>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > In 1791 Americans experienced taxation with representation in
the
> form
> > > of a tax on distilled liquors. The tax was ill received by
many
> > > Americans in western PA and in particular farmers who lived
there
> who
> > > were just about everyone who lived there. In 1794 the federal
> > > government used military force to enforce the tax on the
farmers
> of
> > > western PA. This situation has come to be known as the Whiskey
> > > Rebellion. This was an example of an unpopular tax that was
> imposed by
> > > elected members of congress who were supposedly
representatives
> of the
> > > PEOPLE. Thus it was taxation with representation.
> > >
> > > $
> > >
> >
> >
> > The Whiskey rebellion was much more widespread than just Western
PA.
> > I'm reading a (yet unpublished) book by a fiend of mine about
it.
> >
> > -paul
> > http://lastfreevoice.com
> > http://kubby2008.com/
> >
>
