←back to thread

411 points donpott | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
net01 ◴[] No.44982851[source]
Ofcom can fine 4chan all it wants, but without UK assets those penalties are unenforceable, they have no power here.

This is why the US dropped tea into Boston to have it's own Freedom.

replies(2): >>44982943 #>>44987068 #
blibble ◴[] No.44982943[source]
> This is why the US dropped tea into Boston to have it's own Freedom.

the 3% tariff on Chinese tea was seen as oppressive

don't look at what has been imposed this year (without congressional approval)

replies(6): >>44983235 #>>44983451 #>>44983538 #>>44983568 #>>44989482 #>>44991709 #
zdragnar ◴[] No.44983451[source]
The tariff was oppressive in large part because the colonies didn't have representation in Parliament and were allowed limited (and decreasing) local governance. The Stamp, Townshend and Intolerable Acts were a whole lot more than just "we don't wanna pay taxes".
replies(5): >>44983626 #>>44983717 #>>44983843 #>>44984209 #>>44987482 #
_heimdall ◴[] No.44983717[source]
A similar argument can be made against the tariffs though.

US consumers will be paying the bulk of the tariffs through price increases. We do have representatives in Congress, they just weren't the ones imposing tariffs.

edit: as fun as silent down votes are, it would be interesting to hear where you might disagree

replies(3): >>44985319 #>>44985597 #>>44985675 #
lenerdenator ◴[] No.44985597[source]
Unfortunately the representatives in Congress gave the tariff power to the Presidency.

Now, did they do that with the approval of the voters? Ostensibly, yes, but in reality, it's not that clear-cut.

This would be more like if the Thirteen Colonies had MPs and those MPs still voted in favor of the Stamp Act, or they voted to delegate the power to tariff to someone with a severe personality disorder.

replies(2): >>44986365 #>>44986478 #
bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.44986365{3}[source]
It infuriates me just how much members of Congress have abdicated their jobs and given power to the president to make unilateral decisions. I wonder if we need a constitutional amendment (not that we could get such a thing to pass in this day and age), because it is a complete perversion of how our government is supposed to work.

For a long time now I've been banging the drum of "don't put power in the president's hands", because the downside has always been very clear to me: even if you trust the guy in office today, doesn't mean you will want the next guy to have that power. But people just don't care. They are quite happy to have unilateral power exercised by one man, because they don't bother to think through the consequences of such things.

replies(1): >>44986588 #
1. HankStallone ◴[] No.44986588{4}[source]
Congressmen have to get reelected, so over the years they've been glad to abdicate power to the executive, the judiciary, and the unelected bureaucracy. Anyone but themselves, so they didn't have to sign their names to the unpopular policies they wanted. They still got what the ruling class wanted, but indirectly, so it rarely threatened their incumbency. Whatever happened, they could tell the votes back home, "Sorry, we tried to pass/stop such-and-such, but we don't have any control over the president/courts/bureaucrats. Can't blame me."

It worked pretty well as long as the ruling class were all pretty much on the same page about most things, with some "social issues" differences between the parties that they used for campaigning but never quite acted on. It works less well if different factions start competing and going against the status quo for real.

replies(1): >>44988334 #
2. ◴[] No.44988334[source]