
The Founding Fathers: Smugglers, Tax Evaders, and Traitors - gscott
https://mises.org/library/founding-fathers-smugglers-tax-evaders-and-traitors
======
smithmayowa
Stunning read particularly the part about colonist cutting and selling trees
marked for the government to smugglers and feathering tax collectors. America
has always been the wild west and Americans have always been wild folks, they
just civilised themselves somewhat mostly due to the immense wealth they got
after world war two, hence the surprise I get when people are surprised they
do things like Iraq and the whole middle east expedition or when people are
amazed at their strong gun rights.

~~~
i_am_nomad
If only we Americans could be refined and civilized people like the British,
the French, the Germans, the Indians or the Chinese, none of whom have any
history of savagery or military aggression.

~~~
kace91
As a Spaniard I feel left out.

~~~
i_am_nomad
Lo siento, mi hermano.

~~~
tarrinowser
Hey yeah, the Spanish Conquistadors were all up on Central and South America’s
grill and Conquistadors translates literally to Conquerors.

Why’d ya leave out Spanish Conquerors?

------
mark_l_watson
Great read. I credit the mises.org web site for convincing me to get out of
the US stock market in 2007 and I generally like their Austrian Economics
outlook.

The article is full of humor, and I understand if other people in this thread
don’t like it. It would be a dull world if we all had the same philosophy of
life and business.

I especially liked the opinions in the article around what motivated people to
risk all to come to America.

~~~
bwb
Big difference between opinion piece and someone pretending they know
something about history.

------
Blackstone4
I feel like this is a low quality article.

> Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would
> risk their lives and their children's lives to escape it?

> Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it
> was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody.
> There were no free markets and no free enterprise. Regardless of how honest
> or hard working a person was, it did him little good unless he was in bed
> with the government.

I don't think this author understands what socialism is...from Wikipedia:
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social
ownership and democratic control of the means of production."[0]

At that period in time, economies were run for those at the top (similar to
the 1%). It was centralized control i.e. not a system characterised by social
ownership. I feel like there are some people who think that if a society does
not have free markets then it must be socialist (i.e. !free markets ==
socialism). This is not the case. You wouldn't call the current Russia
political system socialist.... it's authoritarian.

I feel like the author is ignorant.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

~~~
frostburg
It's written by and for parody libertarians / anarcho-capitalists. You
shouldn't have any expectation of intellectual integrity.

------
Kaibeezy
Anarchist roads, rutted and muddy, are what can expediently be cut through
wilderness.

Ideally, they lead to smooth and fast paved roads between and through
populated places, paid for by fair contributions from all, for the benefit of
all, at a reasonable price, as agreed to by the majority.

When unfairness arises, whether in the manner of compelling contributions,
distribution of benefit, unreasonable price, or without majority consent,
that’ll be trouble.

We’ve seen the process and results repeatedly before, so why can’t we do more
about what’s happening now? Where’s the balance point? How do we find it and
rest there instead of swinging wildly past it in both directions?

------
frostburg
This is the outlet that published the notorious "Stateless in Somalia and
loving it" propaganda piece.

~~~
dang
On HN we judge things by the article, not by the outlet, and certainly not by
the lousiest thing an outlet published. Our cupboards would be pretty bare if
we did that.

------
tomohawk
The crucial advance was not just in understanding that laws should govern a
population, but that they should also govern government itself. And not only
that, but that this would take hold in a population to the point where they
would put everything at risk to fight for it.

Hence, the US Constitution specifically enumerates the powers (rights) of
government, and leaves the rights of the people unlimited.

~~~
mafm
Your crucial advance began with the Magna Carta.

The history of England is basically the story of how the Government of England
became increasingly limited by the laws of England. (At least that was a
central theme of David Hume's wildly popular 18th century "History of
England".) And yeah, many people in England gave their lives fighting to
progress that goal around the same time that the Americans declared
independence.

~~~
tomohawk
Absolutely. This tradition is one of the greatest legacies that ties together
the Anglo-sphere.

------
bwb
This person clearly has no understanding of history for why people left no
europe, nor an understanding of the word socialism.

Frustrating to read such BS.

------
fesoliveira
"Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would
risk their lives and their children's lives to escape it?

Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it
was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody."

That is Mises.org in a nutshell you.

------
tnzn
>Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it
was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody

What ?! Seriously ? Taxes = sociamism ?

