Re: Correction Regarding Tea Parties

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

A person on this list has tried to pretend that the Boston Tea Party  
was an expression of "liberty" and support for "private ownership" by  
American colonists because, as the story goes, they were upset at  
being taxed without proper representation in Parliament.  Though I  
have been persuaded by peers on this list from continuing to engage  
that individual in (mostly fruitless) discussion, I cannot allow this  
claim to go unchallenged.

The Tea Act of 1773 was not, as many confused by the shrouds of  
history contend, a "tax on tea".  It was, in fact, quite the  
opposite.  It eliminated the tax on tea charged to the East India  
Company and allowed that favored multi-national corporation to import  
tea to the American colonies duty-free.  This bit of legislation, in  
turn, was the direct result of actions of powerful lobbyists within  
Parliament who represented the East India Company (a corporation  
acting practically as a sovereign nation for 170 years) and sought to  
rescue it from certain bankruptcy arising from its imperialistic  
adventures and unjust land-use practices in the Punjab that culminated  
in a devastating famine that had the unexpected consequences of  
reducing tea production (interesting that even in the late 18th  
century, the influence of human political and economic activities on  
natural systems in distant parts of the world had outward-rippling  
effects that would shake the very foundations of that political and  
economic system) and thereby threatening sales in the European  
marketplace.

The Tea Act actually reduced the price of tea in the colonies, but the  
monopoly granted to a large multinational corporation (BEIC) served to  
undercut the lucrative tea importation business of the American  
merchant class.  One could easily argue that the Boston Tea Party was  
a revolt against an obvious example of the collusion between  
government and corporate power, and point to the long period of time  
in American history before "corporations" were allowed to be licensed  
for anything other than providing goods and services for the common  
good as a lasting legacy of that understanding.  Ironic that Adam  
Smith opposed the Tea Act and thought the East India Company required  
regulation (as opposed to treatment that gave it favored protections),  
while modern proponents of laissez-faire capitalism conveniently  
ignore the very same cozy relationship between governmental favoritism  
and corporate success while glibly proclaiming the supremacy of free  
and unregulated marketplaces (that do not exist).

Mr. Harttman is absolutely correct in his analysis of the rise of  
corporate power, and its cozy relationship with government.  The  
connecting point to this list and the interests we share has to do  
with privatization of publicly funded "corporations" ... a quaint  
(though central and very important) vestige of how private  
corporations once were formed and controlled in this country.   
"Privatization" works to eliminate an equally quaint notion of  
something we used to refer to as the "common good".  Hence, the  
battles being fought over "public education" vs "private education"  
have much larger ramifications than many of us often give thought to.