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)
    en.wikipedia.org
    Common Sense[1] is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775–76 that inspired p...See More
  • Roger Glyndwr Lewis When 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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
    http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3

    ll3/bentham/usury


Comments