though the tax on tea was unjust (as are all taxes), wasn't the destruction of private property (i.e. tea) an act of violence?
isn't it also true that the participants in the original tea party were protesting taxation without representation, and not taxation or the scale of taxation in general? from my understanding they were mad because they were being taxed by an entity with which they had no role in electing.
if this is accurate, then using the tea party as a symbol of protest against taxation in general is inconsistent. according to this logic, shouldn't they just accept whatever taxation they are faced with because it is the result of the democratic process?
It doesn't matter why, the ships holding the tea and the tea itself was clearly not the property of the individuals destroying it. And they clearly did not have permission of the owners so the whole event was an act of property destruction. The individuals doing the destroying should have been forced to compensate the owners for their loss and pay a penalty for the activity.
The reason for the "Tea Party" was that tea is a symbol of the British society. So the attack on Tea was for symbolism over the recently levied taxes. Also if you look at the those in the Tea Party, you will probably find some of the local competition for the tea business.
It was vandalism. A perfectly legitimate act.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
vandalism is property destruction. how is that legitimate?
prattleon: vandalism is property destruction. how is that legitimate?
That's exactly what the tea monopoly was.
so you'd not be opposed to destroying GM automobiles? what about post offices?
prattleon: so you'd not be opposed to destroying GM automobiles? what about post offices?
I am apposed to destroying any property that is not mine.
GM is still somewhat privately owned. The gov't only ownes part of it. As for destroying the post office, who ownes it? Who ownes the dirt or trees in a national park? The people? You? Why don't you go try and dig up a bucket of that dirt and see what happens. Try cutting down one of those trees that you claim is yours. Try telling the gov't that you will be spending a night sleeping in your post office because you have no where else to go. The post office and the national park are owned by a collective group called gov't. What is this group? Can a collective have property rights? No individual who is part of that collective has ownership rights. So who ownes it?
my question was a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to point out the flaw in logic held by Stranger. The tea in question was the property of the east india tea company, their government granted monopoly is inconsequential with respect to their property rights.
The way I see it the tea monopoly itself was an act of violence imposed on the colonies by a tyrannical power.
They were right to destroy it.
so i'll ask again: you'd not be opposed to destroying GM automobiles? what about post offices?
I understand there is no monopoly on cars or mail in the US.
But please feel free to correct me since I don't live in America.
The US government has a monopoly on first class mail delivery (as well as defense, airline security, etc.), and they have a majority stake in GM.
prattleon: so i'll ask again: you'd not be opposed to destroying GM automobiles? what about post offices?
No, why?
Was it 'state-owned' tea or privately owned tea? Anything the state owns is illegitimate because it is incapable of homesteading and therefore can only justify ownership through legislation which is backed by coercion. If it was 'state-owned' tea then the colonists merely went onto the ship, homesteaded the tea and decided to destroy it. A completely legitimate act. If it was privately owned tea from a British importer who acquired the tea through legitimate trade or homesteading then it was an unjust act. See how property rights can be applied to everything! A wonderful system!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Was it 'state-owned' tea or privately owned tea? Anything the state owns is illegitimate because it is incapable of homesteading and therefore can only justify ownership through legislation which is backed by coercion. If it was 'state-owned' tea then the colonists merely went onto the ship, homesteaded the tea and decided to destroy it. A completely legitimate act. If it was privately owned tea from a British importer who acquired the tea through legitimate trade or homesteading then it was an unjust act. See how property rights can be applied to everything! A wonderful system!
It was East India Company tea, which was a proto-state.