Why do we celebrate Independence Day when Americans are no longer within field goal range of being either independent or free? From Eric Peters on a guest post by Eric Peters.
We’re just weeks away from the Annual Irony – the day devoted to celebrating a revolt against the authority of a red, white and blue bully (George III) while living under the thumb of … a red, white and blue bully (Uncle).
We’re supposed to celebrate the former – because it benefitted the latter.
The American colonists were not unsaddled. They simply got a new rider. Why celebrate this?
Does it make any sense to you?
The colonists, we were all told as schoolchildren, objected to being taxed by a far-away king and parliament that did not “represent” them. And which taxed them without their “consent.”
How many of you feel represented by the president and Congress in far-away Washington? Do you recall consenting to being taxed?
And what is it about being “represented” that’s so fabulous?
Are we, really?
How, exactly, can a single individual “represent” thousands – let alone tens (and hundreds of) thousands?
The mechanics of it seem dubious.
Your congressman or senator can only represent himself, while claiming to represent thousands of people, most of whom he’s never even met and many of which manifestly oppose what he does in their name and without their consent.
He does as he thinks ought to be done – but gets moral traction by getting the yokels to accept (or at least, never examine too closely) the idea that he is a kind of magic action figure puppet who somehow transmutes the will of an entity called “the people” – which catchphrase has the same effect on some people as a walkie-talkie or cell phone has upon the aborigines of the rainforest.
The god speaks!
Obey… obey… obey…
“The people” is a noble sounding but oily marketing con. Like the detergent that works “up to” 10 times better than the competition (but probably works about the same and quite possibly worse).
Who are “the people,” exactly?
Go ahead, try to find them. All you’ll find are persons. Who very rarely agree on anything – let alone all things.
Of course admitting this presents logistical and moral problems for those who claim to “represent” us … (“us” – aka “the people” – being a kind of undifferentiated mass with congealed interests).
The fact is if you haven’t specifically given some other person your consent to act on your behalf, you are not represented.
The fact that some person claims to “represent” you (and thousands of other people) doesn’t – presto! – make it so.
Think for a minute about the effrontery of it, this business of some guy claiming to be your “representative,” even if you never asked him.
Let alone him asking you.
And then this person threatens to do you harm if you dispute his claims, if you object to him taking your things and ordering you about.
It brings to mind a statement supposedly made by Lenin: “You may not be interested in government, but government is interested in you.”
To continue reading: Annual Irony Day
