The compromise that led to an 'IOU' basis for money is a root problem for taxation that is probably unfixable. But government corruption, as you said, is the formation of political parties to push the burden of paying onto someone else. Madison and Franklin warned about the risks, but each generation keeps doing it.
If the country's leaders had learned the lesson from Jotham's fable in Judges 9, it could have turned out better. Washington was president and a military leader, so the threat of war to hold sway over people seemed okay. But he was also a surveyor. What if he had headed to Pittsburgh with a road building team instead of militia? Cooperation of free people could have connected and unified the nation economically and led to greater prosperity for all. The grain could have fed people if they could have transported it in edible form.
You bring up an interesting and thoughtful point. Could Washington have quelled the rebellion by looking more closely at the WHY of the matter? While I don't know precisely what he tried to offer prior to mobilizing soldiers, it doesn't seem he fully understood exactly why the farmers were rebelling. It's interesting to think about how it might have gone differently had he offered a solution that made the tax less oppressive. Ultimately, the tax proved unenforceable anyway and was later repealed.
I am a little confused by your label of the whiskey tax as oppression by elected leaders, similar to that by the British of the American colonies before the Revolution. Knowledge of political processes and issues is certainly helpful as we navigate contemporary issues. But what options does a representative government like ours have to support its basic function? As citizens desirous of supporting civil society, do we not have some obligation to consider the broader needs of our country as well as our own personal interests?
David, thank you for your thoughtful comment. You've raised an important point, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and expand on the ideas presented in today's reflection.
I understand your concern about how my reflection could be interpreted as a critique of all taxation. That wasn't my intention. You're absolutely right that taxation is a necessary function of government, and as citizens, we do have an obligation to consider the broader needs of our country. The reflection wasn't meant to imply that all taxation is inherently oppressive. Rather, it was highlighting a broader principle: that all human governments, being imperfect, have the potential to become oppressive, even unintentionally.
The Whiskey Rebellion serves as an example of how taxation, when applied without full consideration of its impact on different groups, can become oppressive. As Richard pointed out, the Whiskey Tax disproportionately affected the farmers of Western Pennsylvania, for whom whiskey was not just a commodity but a crucial part of their economy and way of life. This scenario illustrates how a policy that might seem reasonable to one group can be deeply burdensome to another.
It's important to understand that the Whiskey Tax wasn't just about revenue generation; it was part of a larger conflict between different visions for America's future. The tax disproportionately affected small farmers and distillers in the frontier regions, who often used whiskey as a form of currency due to the scarcity of cash. Meanwhile, larger eastern distillers could more easily absorb the cost.
This disparity in impact revealed a deeper issue: the disconnect between the federal government's policies and the realities of life on the frontier. The farmers in Western Pennsylvania felt that their needs and circumstances were being ignored by a distant government that didn't understand or represent their interests.
The parallel to British taxation before the Revolution isn't perfect, but there are similarities in the feeling of being taxed by a government that doesn't truly represent you. Remember, many of these farmers were veterans of the Revolutionary War - they had fought against taxation without representation, only to feel that they were now facing a similar situation from their own government.
This event reminds us of an important truth: the potential for oppression often lies not in the concept of taxation itself, but in its unequal application or in policies that fail to account for the diverse circumstances of all citizens. Even today, we see examples where certain taxes or regulations, while easily absorbed by some, can be overwhelmingly burdensome to others.
As Christians engaged in civic life, we need to be aware of how policies might affect different groups in society, especially those whose voices might not be as loud in the halls of power. We must remember that while we have a duty to support our government and contribute to the common good, we also have a responsibility to speak up when we see injustice or disproportionate burdens placed on any group.
Ultimately, the Whiskey Rebellion and similar events in history serve to remind us of the ongoing challenge in any democracy: balancing the needs of the whole with the rights and concerns of various groups within society. As Christians, we're called to navigate this complexity with wisdom, seeking justice and showing empathy, while always remembering that our ultimate citizenship is in heaven.
Thank you again for pushing us to think more deeply about these important issues. It's through this kind of thoughtful dialogue that we can better understand our history and our role as Christian citizens in today's world.
Somewhere in the Tao Te Ching there is a parable about how a farmer can keep his cows happy. The answer, of course, is to give them more room to graze. The government's war to oppress its citizens and make them pay for simple pleasures they can make for themselves is a consistent and never-ending battle between freedom and slavery. If it was not for the fact that I'd become a pariah in my Baptist neighborhood, I'd put a NORML sign in my front yard. Every act of independence is seen as defiance in the 21st century. Just as citizens were terrorized by the Feds for making whiskey 300 years ago and imprisoned for smoking herbs up until the present time, we are now living in an oppressive oligarchy where we are required to pay to express our thoughts (i.e. X) and to read other people's thoughts (i.e. Substack.com).
The freedom that mountain men like the veterans of the Louis and Clark expedition enjoyed will never be known again. We have been gelded and trained to stand in line without complaining. Leviathan is in charge and every day it becomes more difficult to dislodge the tyrants.
Interesting point you bring ip David. Originally the tax plan proposed was a property tax to pay the Revolutionary Ear bills. This was supported by those in the Pittsburgh area as fair. But tge big landholders in the East stopped that rather quickly and replaced it with an excise tax on alcohol and taxing those in Western Pennsylvania at a much higher rate than those Eastern landholders (Note that George Washington owned one of the largest distilleries in the new nation.) Production of alcohol was essential to the Western Pennsylvania economy since they had little money and poor transportation in bad roads and conveyance of said goods.
A further issue was few or no Eastern landholders volunteered for George Washington's army to Western Pennsylvania so a draft system was employeed to build an army big enough to go against the nation's own people.
This then explains why the Western Pennsylvanians felt the taxation was similar to that of British imposing unfair taxes on the American colonies.
("Whiskey Rebels: The Story Of A Frontier Uprising", Leland Baldwin)
But the arguments set forth as to the part of believers being light and salt in the political process of any country is veryuvh appreciated Jason.
The compromise that led to an 'IOU' basis for money is a root problem for taxation that is probably unfixable. But government corruption, as you said, is the formation of political parties to push the burden of paying onto someone else. Madison and Franklin warned about the risks, but each generation keeps doing it.
If the country's leaders had learned the lesson from Jotham's fable in Judges 9, it could have turned out better. Washington was president and a military leader, so the threat of war to hold sway over people seemed okay. But he was also a surveyor. What if he had headed to Pittsburgh with a road building team instead of militia? Cooperation of free people could have connected and unified the nation economically and led to greater prosperity for all. The grain could have fed people if they could have transported it in edible form.
You bring up an interesting and thoughtful point. Could Washington have quelled the rebellion by looking more closely at the WHY of the matter? While I don't know precisely what he tried to offer prior to mobilizing soldiers, it doesn't seem he fully understood exactly why the farmers were rebelling. It's interesting to think about how it might have gone differently had he offered a solution that made the tax less oppressive. Ultimately, the tax proved unenforceable anyway and was later repealed.
I am a little confused by your label of the whiskey tax as oppression by elected leaders, similar to that by the British of the American colonies before the Revolution. Knowledge of political processes and issues is certainly helpful as we navigate contemporary issues. But what options does a representative government like ours have to support its basic function? As citizens desirous of supporting civil society, do we not have some obligation to consider the broader needs of our country as well as our own personal interests?
David, thank you for your thoughtful comment. You've raised an important point, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and expand on the ideas presented in today's reflection.
I understand your concern about how my reflection could be interpreted as a critique of all taxation. That wasn't my intention. You're absolutely right that taxation is a necessary function of government, and as citizens, we do have an obligation to consider the broader needs of our country. The reflection wasn't meant to imply that all taxation is inherently oppressive. Rather, it was highlighting a broader principle: that all human governments, being imperfect, have the potential to become oppressive, even unintentionally.
The Whiskey Rebellion serves as an example of how taxation, when applied without full consideration of its impact on different groups, can become oppressive. As Richard pointed out, the Whiskey Tax disproportionately affected the farmers of Western Pennsylvania, for whom whiskey was not just a commodity but a crucial part of their economy and way of life. This scenario illustrates how a policy that might seem reasonable to one group can be deeply burdensome to another.
It's important to understand that the Whiskey Tax wasn't just about revenue generation; it was part of a larger conflict between different visions for America's future. The tax disproportionately affected small farmers and distillers in the frontier regions, who often used whiskey as a form of currency due to the scarcity of cash. Meanwhile, larger eastern distillers could more easily absorb the cost.
This disparity in impact revealed a deeper issue: the disconnect between the federal government's policies and the realities of life on the frontier. The farmers in Western Pennsylvania felt that their needs and circumstances were being ignored by a distant government that didn't understand or represent their interests.
The parallel to British taxation before the Revolution isn't perfect, but there are similarities in the feeling of being taxed by a government that doesn't truly represent you. Remember, many of these farmers were veterans of the Revolutionary War - they had fought against taxation without representation, only to feel that they were now facing a similar situation from their own government.
This event reminds us of an important truth: the potential for oppression often lies not in the concept of taxation itself, but in its unequal application or in policies that fail to account for the diverse circumstances of all citizens. Even today, we see examples where certain taxes or regulations, while easily absorbed by some, can be overwhelmingly burdensome to others.
As Christians engaged in civic life, we need to be aware of how policies might affect different groups in society, especially those whose voices might not be as loud in the halls of power. We must remember that while we have a duty to support our government and contribute to the common good, we also have a responsibility to speak up when we see injustice or disproportionate burdens placed on any group.
Ultimately, the Whiskey Rebellion and similar events in history serve to remind us of the ongoing challenge in any democracy: balancing the needs of the whole with the rights and concerns of various groups within society. As Christians, we're called to navigate this complexity with wisdom, seeking justice and showing empathy, while always remembering that our ultimate citizenship is in heaven.
Thank you again for pushing us to think more deeply about these important issues. It's through this kind of thoughtful dialogue that we can better understand our history and our role as Christian citizens in today's world.
Somewhere in the Tao Te Ching there is a parable about how a farmer can keep his cows happy. The answer, of course, is to give them more room to graze. The government's war to oppress its citizens and make them pay for simple pleasures they can make for themselves is a consistent and never-ending battle between freedom and slavery. If it was not for the fact that I'd become a pariah in my Baptist neighborhood, I'd put a NORML sign in my front yard. Every act of independence is seen as defiance in the 21st century. Just as citizens were terrorized by the Feds for making whiskey 300 years ago and imprisoned for smoking herbs up until the present time, we are now living in an oppressive oligarchy where we are required to pay to express our thoughts (i.e. X) and to read other people's thoughts (i.e. Substack.com).
The freedom that mountain men like the veterans of the Louis and Clark expedition enjoyed will never be known again. We have been gelded and trained to stand in line without complaining. Leviathan is in charge and every day it becomes more difficult to dislodge the tyrants.
Interesting point you bring ip David. Originally the tax plan proposed was a property tax to pay the Revolutionary Ear bills. This was supported by those in the Pittsburgh area as fair. But tge big landholders in the East stopped that rather quickly and replaced it with an excise tax on alcohol and taxing those in Western Pennsylvania at a much higher rate than those Eastern landholders (Note that George Washington owned one of the largest distilleries in the new nation.) Production of alcohol was essential to the Western Pennsylvania economy since they had little money and poor transportation in bad roads and conveyance of said goods.
A further issue was few or no Eastern landholders volunteered for George Washington's army to Western Pennsylvania so a draft system was employeed to build an army big enough to go against the nation's own people.
This then explains why the Western Pennsylvanians felt the taxation was similar to that of British imposing unfair taxes on the American colonies.
("Whiskey Rebels: The Story Of A Frontier Uprising", Leland Baldwin)
But the arguments set forth as to the part of believers being light and salt in the political process of any country is veryuvh appreciated Jason.