On Scottish Independence, Usury and The true purpose of Colonial Governent
Thomas Paine was an English Revolutionary he wrote a pamphlet which got the American Revolutions purposes against imperial /Colonial Rule form England cemented in the minds of ordinary people in the US at that time being milked by King George, Of course the US have had two further King Georges since then and exchanged one Aristocracy for another over the course of 250 Years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_(pamphlet)
Roger Glyndwr LewisWhen another Country colonises and says it will run things better than the people of that other country themselves you know there has to be something uncommon in that reasoning. Jeremy Bentham published a long Correspondense with Adam Smith on the tilte The Defence of Usury, Bentham also in that Pamplhlet set out the logical basis upon which Colonialisation would make sense to a colonising power.The value of a colony to the mother country, according to the common mode of computation, is equal to the sum total of imports from that colony and exports to it put together. From this statement, if the foregoing observation be just, the following deductions will come to be made. 1. The whole value of the exports to the colony. 2. So much of the imports as is balanced by the exports. 3. Such a portion of the above remainder as answers to so much of the trade as would be equally carried on, were the colony independent. 4. So much of that reduced profit as would be made, were the same capital employed in any other trade or branch of industry lost by the independence of the colony. 5. But the same capital, if employed in agriculture. would have produced a rent over and above the ordinary profits of capital: which rent, according to a general and undisputed computation, may be stated at a sum equal to the amount of those profits. Thence arises a further deduction, viz. the loss to the nation caused by employing the capital in the trade to the colony, in preference to the improvement of land, and thence upon the supposition that the continuance of the trade depended upon the keeping the colony in subjection. The other mischiefs resulting from the keeping of a colony in subjection, are: 1. The expence of its establishment, civil and military. 2. The contingent expence of wars and other coercive measures for keeping it in subjection. 3. The contingent expence of wars for the defence of it against foreign powers. 4. The force, military and naval, constantly kept on foot under the apprehension of such wars. 5. The occasional danger to political liberty from the force thus kept up. 6. The contingent expence of wars produced by alliances contracted for the purpose of supporting wars that may be brought on by the defence of it. 7. The corruptive effects of the influence resulting from the patronage of the establishment, civil and military. 8. The damage that must be done to the national stock of intelligence by the false views of the national interest, which must be kept up in order to prevent the nation from opening their eyes and insisting upon the enfranchisement of the colony. 9. The sacrifice that must be made of the real interest of the colony to this imaginary interest of the mother-country. It is for the purpose of governing it badly, and for no other, that you wish to get or keep a colony. Govern it well, it is of no use to you. To govern its inhabitants as well as they would govern themselves, you must choose to govern them those only whom they would themselves choose, you must sacrifice none of their interests to your own, you must bestow as much time and attention to their interests as they would themselves, in a word, you must take those very measures and no others, which they themselves would take. But would this be governing? And what would it be worth to you, if it were? After all, it would be impossible for you to govern them so well as they would themselves, on account of the distance. 10. The bad government resulting to the mother-country from the complication, the indistinct views of things, and the consumption of time occasioned by this load of distant dependencies.
Benthamns Defense of usury is flawed in that it misunderstands the Debt aspects of Money creation, which was not as bad then as it is now but was still a system being pedalled by the infamous John Law in France.