Is the United States Really a Free Country and How Does It Compare to the Colonies Under British Rule?
Many people have been crying that Americans are selfish and that they have lost faith in humanity because we could not come together in a World War II-style collective effort to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic. Aside from the fact that collectivism brought us such gruesome historical events, such as genocide under Nazism and Communism of the Soviet and Chinese variations, and that governments under the mission of protecting individuals from foreign and domestic threats have committed far worse atrocities than individuals ever have; the British government under King George III expected the selfish colonists to submit to the authority of the empire and live collectively and pay their part under the protection of the Crown. While most Americans echo the same talking points taught to us during elementary school that the American Revolution was fought solely because the British taxed the colonists, in reality, the tyranny of the 21st century United States is far worse than that under the British monarchy.
Most states during the 2020 to 2021 pandemic implemented some sort of restrictions through executive edict, and although the tyranny came in many different forms based on the federalism concept, governors are not permitted to act like kings or steal the rights of the citizenry. The Fourteenth Amendment generally prohibits the states from violating the Bill of Rights, and Article IV Section 4 guarantees a republican form of government to all states. Yet, the legislatures took a backseat to the supremacy of the executive branch, as they took an extended recess. Even the courts shut down, in most cases, and the executive branch (including the bureaucracy) was the only active component of government. One of the major complaints against King George III was that he dissolved the colonies’ legislatures when the citizens got too unruly, especially in the cases of Massachusetts following the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the subsequent Coercive Acts (as well as the 1769 suspension due to Samuel Adams’ “circular letter” against the Townshend Acts) and of New York in 1767 after financial protest against the Quartering Act led to the Suspending Act.
During the height of the “two weeks to flatten the curve” that evolved into over a year of restrictions (it was easy to predict that this would happen), many governors forced restaurants, bars, churches, gyms, theaters, museums, and many other businesses and organizations to close until further notice (again, by executive edict). People were told to stay in their homes unless traveling for essential business, like their jobs (if they were still permitted to work) and the grocery store. Some jobs issued permission slips in case the employees were stopped by law enforcement. Private gatherings in homes were prohibited completely or restricted during gradual easements (even Thanksgiving gatherings in New York were limited to ten people in private residences, though many county governments and sheriffs throughout the state refused to enforce the order). Pastors were arrested for holding church services, and bar and gym owners challenged the restrictions, often leading to fines and arrests. People began to snitch on their neighbors like they were working for the Stasi or the Gestapo, and some citizens were arrested for hosting large parties in their yards.
After the French and Indian War, the British government forced the colonists to trade exclusively with it (enforcement of the mercantilist system) and placed taxes to collect revenue, and then it searched ferociously for smuggled goods. Just like the monarchy created monopolies and disallowed free business practices, the state governments shut down small businesses, which forced citizens to become more impoverished and small business owners to lose their practices that they had worked hard to achieve, while the “essential” corporations remained in place making large profits. Americans had to become dependent on unemployment and other government programs (now progressives get to push for more programs, like universal basic income, as people got a taste of what politicians could not get passed without such an event) in a similar manner to the colonists with the British government. The Walmart/Target/Amazon of the Revolution was the British East India Company, which had a monopoly in the colonies at the expense of potential small business owners that had to become smugglers.
All Boston town meetings were prohibited by the 1774 Intolerable Acts, which parallels the forced closures of restaurants and churches and the prohibition of any public meetings and events by the governors during the pandemic (except for the politically-acceptable protests of Black Lives Matter, which were encouraged by the governors and officials of blue states). The First Amendment (right to free speech, protest, and assemble in a place of one’s own choosing, including small businesses) was obliterated, and state governments did not want Americans to protest their government with grievances against lockdowns and mask mandates, just like the British government wanted to halt the activities of the Bostonian rebels. In many ways, the pandemic restrictions were worse than the restrictions on town meetings in Boston because they applied to most residents throughout the United States, as opposed to just one city or state (plus, population numbers are much higher today, so more people were affected).
It is no secret that the United States government has become the largest empire the planet has ever seen (this was not what the founding fathers envisioned, and in fact, they warned against it). Because of the constant wars (propping up the military-industrial complex) and blowback associated with maintaining an empire, measures have been implemented for years to spy on Americans and restrict their lives. Edward Snowden revealed a laundry list of surveillance measures that were put in effect after the events of 9-11, and in many ways, they compare to the actions of King George III’s soldiers in hunting for goods that were smuggled by those hoping to avoid the taxes and restrictions placed without representation. Because of the 9-11 exemption (sort of like the COVID-19 pandemic exception) in the U.S. Constitution (our founders must have been prophets to have known that these events would occur), the FBI and other agencies have been able to obtain rubber-stamped warrants (judges hardly ever deny such requests) under the FISC (courts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), all under the guise of stopping terrorism. The NSA has collected metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, often in bulk (no specific warrants are necessary), of millions of Americans, and in many cases, it has worked with telecommunication and internet service companies (in the frequently-utilized public-private corporatist partnerships). It has even justified targeting Americans not associated with foreign countries or terrorism through roving wiretaps, lone wolf provisions, and Section 215 (records searched must only be relevant to a terrorist investigation or there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which, in reality, could cover almost anything), and it has sometimes collected the content of individuals’ phone calls, text messages, and Internet searches (with just the low-standard and secret FISC warrant, and even without a warrant, if one person is outside the U.S. or under investigation by the government). And, of course, many of these terrorist searches are done in secret without the target being notified, and companies holding the records have been forced to keep quiet under gag orders. Not to mention, the government can broadly redefine domestic terrorism to include acts or groups that should be protected by free speech and association, and the government has unconstitutionally engaged in indefinite detention and torture of individuals. With the growing narrative against conservative groups as extremists (after the January 6th riots), new domestic terrorism laws could prevent Americans from freely expressing their political views into the future. Knowing that the government is watching an individual or group and having to alter actions because of it constitute as violations of the First Amendment too.
Just like British soldiers were allowed to search the colonists’ homes without actual warrants, the FBI has gotten away with issuing national security letters (under pen register/trap and trace searches), which are essentially blank warrants from the FISC where the government agents have been allowed to fill out the location to be searched, the target of the search, and the items to be seized. Although the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments have not been able to prevent government tyranny, the colonists of the American states did not even have a documented protection from illegal searches and seizures (though the effect is the same in both scenarios), and British soldiers, through “Writs of Assistance,” wrote their own blank warrants to search homes, commercial warehouses, and ships. However, today, unconstitutional searches and seizures are arguable worse because of the technology that is available to the government that was not in the eighteenth century.
If this were not bad enough, the federal government can spy on individuals through their webcams and televisions, essentially having agents stationed in their homes without their permission while an investigation is being conducted. This is a violation of one’s right to privacy and ownership of property (if you do not feel comfortable in your own home and cannot use your property without fear of an investigation or arrest, do you really own your property or have privacy?). A common practice of the British was to station troops in unoccupied buildings and require the colonists to foot the bill (some soldiers were even housed in private residences, thus the Third Amendment). Quartering was another reason for the American revolution, and having a standing army patrolling the streets and entering people’s homes or other buildings was surely an act of tyranny.
Although comparing government agents entering one’s home through the Internet or webcams to the physical quartering of troops may seem like a stretch, remember that law enforcement regularly enters people’s homes and businesses searching for drugs and weapons (again, government intruders invading people’s homes is a violation of privacy and the right to ownership). Many people’s lives have been ruined by the Drug War, and despite the victimless crimes that lock people away, nothing beneficial has come of it. Agents have regularly killed, injured, and intimidated individuals in their own private homes (government agents have even entered the wrong home on several occasions), under the guise of the collective effort to keep people safe from drugs. The federal wars on drugs, guns, and terrorism have trickled down to local police departments, which have become militarized units of savagery across the land (the federal government sells weapons and vehicles to the police). Just like British soldiers patrolled the streets of Boston following the events there, standing armies patrol the modern streets of America in the form of “protect and serve.” It is difficult for many people to get by in their lives without some confrontation with law enforcement, and under this type of arrangement, in conjunction with mass incarceration, Americans being free from tyranny is not really attainable.
Similar to the discussion above pertaining to COVID-19 restrictions and the trade restrictions and taxes on the colonists, in the United States today, people face a plethora of taxes and restrictions on businesses and individuals. For example, the progressive income tax steals people’s money before they even receive their paychecks (plus, if people pay one-quarter of their income in taxes and have the money deducted automatically, they are essentially working for one-quarter of the year for the government without pay, which is a form of slavery). There are many other taxes that individuals and business owners face in the land of the “free,” and in conjunction with thousands of pages of business regulations and the necessity to acquire a license from the state to practice their arts, many Americans feel the similar enforcement of trade restrictions, prohibitions against selling of certain goods (think drugs or food under pandemic restrictions in today’s world), and unprecedented taxation.
Although many will claim that Americans today have representation in Congress and state legislatures unlike the colonists, it is not difficult to imagine what would happen if a politician were to propose an end to taxes for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, the military-industrial complex, and financial aid or gun transfers to foreign militaries. Since these tax expenditures are set in stone and cannot be touched, do Americans have true representation, or are there career politicians who are self-interested and corrupt and continue status quo policies?
Perhaps in many ways, Americans are stuck under virtual representation in a similar manner that the British government argued was afforded to the colonists. Laws without representation can be seen even in the modern day with Upstate New York, for example, being subjected to the laws passed by the New York City-dominated legislature (the majority rules concept should not be used to justify the lack of representation of an entire state being ruled by one city) and, of course, with Puerto Rico (Upstate New York and Puerto Rico becoming the fifty-first and fifty-second states may solve some of these issues) and Washington, D.C. (this requires a constitutional amendment). Many rural citizens in Illinois, California, Oregon, and other states do not feel represented, and perhaps we should look at allowing the admission of several more states, or at least the restructuring of state boundaries to meet the needs of those living in areas where they are not content (let the principles of the Declaration of Independence live on).
We like to act like the United States is a beacon of liberty and justice, but the COVID-19 restrictions revealed that most Americans prefer the collectivism orchestrated under the state. As we celebrate Independence Day this year, let us reflect on what it truly means to live in a free society and rewire our brains to resist the temptations of state control over our lives. Collectivism sounds good on the surface, but, in reality, it often leads to horrible outcomes and deaths and injury to many people, and it is the antithesis of freedom. We as Americans need to choose whether we are sovereign individuals who obtain our rights naturally and from our humanity, or whether we prefer to live in a society where our rights are granted to us and given only when it is convenient to the government (and, of course, taken when there is a declared emergency of any sort). Happy Fourth of July!
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
Most states during the 2020 to 2021 pandemic implemented some sort of restrictions through executive edict, and although the tyranny came in many different forms based on the federalism concept, governors are not permitted to act like kings or steal the rights of the citizenry. The Fourteenth Amendment generally prohibits the states from violating the Bill of Rights, and Article IV Section 4 guarantees a republican form of government to all states. Yet, the legislatures took a backseat to the supremacy of the executive branch, as they took an extended recess. Even the courts shut down, in most cases, and the executive branch (including the bureaucracy) was the only active component of government. One of the major complaints against King George III was that he dissolved the colonies’ legislatures when the citizens got too unruly, especially in the cases of Massachusetts following the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the subsequent Coercive Acts (as well as the 1769 suspension due to Samuel Adams’ “circular letter” against the Townshend Acts) and of New York in 1767 after financial protest against the Quartering Act led to the Suspending Act.
During the height of the “two weeks to flatten the curve” that evolved into over a year of restrictions (it was easy to predict that this would happen), many governors forced restaurants, bars, churches, gyms, theaters, museums, and many other businesses and organizations to close until further notice (again, by executive edict). People were told to stay in their homes unless traveling for essential business, like their jobs (if they were still permitted to work) and the grocery store. Some jobs issued permission slips in case the employees were stopped by law enforcement. Private gatherings in homes were prohibited completely or restricted during gradual easements (even Thanksgiving gatherings in New York were limited to ten people in private residences, though many county governments and sheriffs throughout the state refused to enforce the order). Pastors were arrested for holding church services, and bar and gym owners challenged the restrictions, often leading to fines and arrests. People began to snitch on their neighbors like they were working for the Stasi or the Gestapo, and some citizens were arrested for hosting large parties in their yards.
After the French and Indian War, the British government forced the colonists to trade exclusively with it (enforcement of the mercantilist system) and placed taxes to collect revenue, and then it searched ferociously for smuggled goods. Just like the monarchy created monopolies and disallowed free business practices, the state governments shut down small businesses, which forced citizens to become more impoverished and small business owners to lose their practices that they had worked hard to achieve, while the “essential” corporations remained in place making large profits. Americans had to become dependent on unemployment and other government programs (now progressives get to push for more programs, like universal basic income, as people got a taste of what politicians could not get passed without such an event) in a similar manner to the colonists with the British government. The Walmart/Target/Amazon of the Revolution was the British East India Company, which had a monopoly in the colonies at the expense of potential small business owners that had to become smugglers.
All Boston town meetings were prohibited by the 1774 Intolerable Acts, which parallels the forced closures of restaurants and churches and the prohibition of any public meetings and events by the governors during the pandemic (except for the politically-acceptable protests of Black Lives Matter, which were encouraged by the governors and officials of blue states). The First Amendment (right to free speech, protest, and assemble in a place of one’s own choosing, including small businesses) was obliterated, and state governments did not want Americans to protest their government with grievances against lockdowns and mask mandates, just like the British government wanted to halt the activities of the Bostonian rebels. In many ways, the pandemic restrictions were worse than the restrictions on town meetings in Boston because they applied to most residents throughout the United States, as opposed to just one city or state (plus, population numbers are much higher today, so more people were affected).
It is no secret that the United States government has become the largest empire the planet has ever seen (this was not what the founding fathers envisioned, and in fact, they warned against it). Because of the constant wars (propping up the military-industrial complex) and blowback associated with maintaining an empire, measures have been implemented for years to spy on Americans and restrict their lives. Edward Snowden revealed a laundry list of surveillance measures that were put in effect after the events of 9-11, and in many ways, they compare to the actions of King George III’s soldiers in hunting for goods that were smuggled by those hoping to avoid the taxes and restrictions placed without representation. Because of the 9-11 exemption (sort of like the COVID-19 pandemic exception) in the U.S. Constitution (our founders must have been prophets to have known that these events would occur), the FBI and other agencies have been able to obtain rubber-stamped warrants (judges hardly ever deny such requests) under the FISC (courts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), all under the guise of stopping terrorism. The NSA has collected metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, often in bulk (no specific warrants are necessary), of millions of Americans, and in many cases, it has worked with telecommunication and internet service companies (in the frequently-utilized public-private corporatist partnerships). It has even justified targeting Americans not associated with foreign countries or terrorism through roving wiretaps, lone wolf provisions, and Section 215 (records searched must only be relevant to a terrorist investigation or there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which, in reality, could cover almost anything), and it has sometimes collected the content of individuals’ phone calls, text messages, and Internet searches (with just the low-standard and secret FISC warrant, and even without a warrant, if one person is outside the U.S. or under investigation by the government). And, of course, many of these terrorist searches are done in secret without the target being notified, and companies holding the records have been forced to keep quiet under gag orders. Not to mention, the government can broadly redefine domestic terrorism to include acts or groups that should be protected by free speech and association, and the government has unconstitutionally engaged in indefinite detention and torture of individuals. With the growing narrative against conservative groups as extremists (after the January 6th riots), new domestic terrorism laws could prevent Americans from freely expressing their political views into the future. Knowing that the government is watching an individual or group and having to alter actions because of it constitute as violations of the First Amendment too.
Just like British soldiers were allowed to search the colonists’ homes without actual warrants, the FBI has gotten away with issuing national security letters (under pen register/trap and trace searches), which are essentially blank warrants from the FISC where the government agents have been allowed to fill out the location to be searched, the target of the search, and the items to be seized. Although the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments have not been able to prevent government tyranny, the colonists of the American states did not even have a documented protection from illegal searches and seizures (though the effect is the same in both scenarios), and British soldiers, through “Writs of Assistance,” wrote their own blank warrants to search homes, commercial warehouses, and ships. However, today, unconstitutional searches and seizures are arguable worse because of the technology that is available to the government that was not in the eighteenth century.
If this were not bad enough, the federal government can spy on individuals through their webcams and televisions, essentially having agents stationed in their homes without their permission while an investigation is being conducted. This is a violation of one’s right to privacy and ownership of property (if you do not feel comfortable in your own home and cannot use your property without fear of an investigation or arrest, do you really own your property or have privacy?). A common practice of the British was to station troops in unoccupied buildings and require the colonists to foot the bill (some soldiers were even housed in private residences, thus the Third Amendment). Quartering was another reason for the American revolution, and having a standing army patrolling the streets and entering people’s homes or other buildings was surely an act of tyranny.
Although comparing government agents entering one’s home through the Internet or webcams to the physical quartering of troops may seem like a stretch, remember that law enforcement regularly enters people’s homes and businesses searching for drugs and weapons (again, government intruders invading people’s homes is a violation of privacy and the right to ownership). Many people’s lives have been ruined by the Drug War, and despite the victimless crimes that lock people away, nothing beneficial has come of it. Agents have regularly killed, injured, and intimidated individuals in their own private homes (government agents have even entered the wrong home on several occasions), under the guise of the collective effort to keep people safe from drugs. The federal wars on drugs, guns, and terrorism have trickled down to local police departments, which have become militarized units of savagery across the land (the federal government sells weapons and vehicles to the police). Just like British soldiers patrolled the streets of Boston following the events there, standing armies patrol the modern streets of America in the form of “protect and serve.” It is difficult for many people to get by in their lives without some confrontation with law enforcement, and under this type of arrangement, in conjunction with mass incarceration, Americans being free from tyranny is not really attainable.
Similar to the discussion above pertaining to COVID-19 restrictions and the trade restrictions and taxes on the colonists, in the United States today, people face a plethora of taxes and restrictions on businesses and individuals. For example, the progressive income tax steals people’s money before they even receive their paychecks (plus, if people pay one-quarter of their income in taxes and have the money deducted automatically, they are essentially working for one-quarter of the year for the government without pay, which is a form of slavery). There are many other taxes that individuals and business owners face in the land of the “free,” and in conjunction with thousands of pages of business regulations and the necessity to acquire a license from the state to practice their arts, many Americans feel the similar enforcement of trade restrictions, prohibitions against selling of certain goods (think drugs or food under pandemic restrictions in today’s world), and unprecedented taxation.
Although many will claim that Americans today have representation in Congress and state legislatures unlike the colonists, it is not difficult to imagine what would happen if a politician were to propose an end to taxes for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, the military-industrial complex, and financial aid or gun transfers to foreign militaries. Since these tax expenditures are set in stone and cannot be touched, do Americans have true representation, or are there career politicians who are self-interested and corrupt and continue status quo policies?
Perhaps in many ways, Americans are stuck under virtual representation in a similar manner that the British government argued was afforded to the colonists. Laws without representation can be seen even in the modern day with Upstate New York, for example, being subjected to the laws passed by the New York City-dominated legislature (the majority rules concept should not be used to justify the lack of representation of an entire state being ruled by one city) and, of course, with Puerto Rico (Upstate New York and Puerto Rico becoming the fifty-first and fifty-second states may solve some of these issues) and Washington, D.C. (this requires a constitutional amendment). Many rural citizens in Illinois, California, Oregon, and other states do not feel represented, and perhaps we should look at allowing the admission of several more states, or at least the restructuring of state boundaries to meet the needs of those living in areas where they are not content (let the principles of the Declaration of Independence live on).
We like to act like the United States is a beacon of liberty and justice, but the COVID-19 restrictions revealed that most Americans prefer the collectivism orchestrated under the state. As we celebrate Independence Day this year, let us reflect on what it truly means to live in a free society and rewire our brains to resist the temptations of state control over our lives. Collectivism sounds good on the surface, but, in reality, it often leads to horrible outcomes and deaths and injury to many people, and it is the antithesis of freedom. We as Americans need to choose whether we are sovereign individuals who obtain our rights naturally and from our humanity, or whether we prefer to live in a society where our rights are granted to us and given only when it is convenient to the government (and, of course, taken when there is a declared emergency of any sort). Happy Fourth of July!
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
No comments have been added yet.
