This thread is intended to ask the question "is the principle 'no taxation without representation' valid", evidently you think it is not. Yet is was the catch cry of the revolution that saw the creation of the USA. Is the USA founded upon a false principle then?
Some thoughts on the SLOGAN......
1. Revolutions are often ripe with slogans. There were many in the American one. "Liberty" was the foremost one, a particularly useful one from a "revolution" mindset since it has no real meaning and thus can be imputed with anything and everything. "Live free or die" was another useful (albeit morbid) one. But I don't think America was "founded" on any of these slogans. There were some (admittedly vague) PRINCIPLES (mostly taken from the French) and yes, that included the idea of a representative republic. But no, "no taxation" was never a principle of this country. Yes, some Americans felt that ENGLISH taxes were unfair ( a common view toward taxes.... it continues to this day), and Americans didn't like the idea that SOME (not much of it, actually) went to England and thus did not directly benefit the colonies: THAT
was corrected and thus THAT principle was achieved - no longer did taxes paid by Americans go to the treasury of FOREIGN nations (that returned in a significant way after WW II, today American taxes help support many foreign nations but presumably at the choice of Americans rather than an imposition of foreign lands).
2. Revolutons are as much psychological as political.... and the American one was very complex. There was an emerging nationalism as SOME this side of the pond began to think of themselves PRIMARY as Virginian, SECONDARILY as American and only lastly as English. The economy soon developed an AMERICAN focus, less connected to England. Indeed, the colonies were becoming a powerful economic force on their own. For many, the standard of living was higher this side of the pond..... economic opportunity was often greater.
3. In 1776, the 13 colonies were about equally divided into Patriots (pro-independence although by no means necessarily nationals - again, people identified more with their colony than with "America"), with "Loyalists" (supporting colonial status) and those who were apolitical, just wanting to avoid the conflict and who supported the increasing independance of the colonies (many of such were essentially independent internally already). To put it another way, NEVER during the long war of independence were MOST Americans "Patriots" (a not-too-uncommon aspect of Revolutions - they are often fought and won my minorities). And this 3 groups ebbed and flowed, grew and declined.... and differed widely by area. It was a complex matrix.
4. Revolutions are born out of HOPE. People who are trapped can't revolt (study North Korea) and feel helpless anyway. But HOPE is a powerful, powerful tool. And when it is combined with nationalism and often with a quasi-religious milieu and a feeling that economically, things will be much better - well, that can be very powerful. People die for that. And it helps to have a well-focused enemy (King George III served well..... HE was the target, not the English people).
5. It seems to ME that if the Revolution had not happened, things probably wouldn't be much different. I don't know about Australia, but I've been to Canada many times and have had working relationship with Canadians. Yes, TECHNICALLY, OFFICIALLY, there is still some theoretical "tie" to jolly ole England but Canada is an independent country as much as any. And I think there has been some efforts in some former colonies to become republics and cut those formal, uber-technical "ties" (what little exists)..... I don't think South Africa or India have any "ties" at all anymore. Would this be 50 English colonies today, with only internal self-governance (at most)? I doubt it..... now, maybe it would look like Canada but there's not much difference.
Revolutions are very, very interesting things (I look a class in it back in my undergrad years)..... And there are remarkable things about the American one (mostly how it didn't "overshoot" and "self-deflate").... and a lot of the credit for the success of the American one lies not with the war but by George Washington and other leaders who proved to be conservative and capable and void of personal power-quests, but early US History and the Civil War shows it was rocky....
But it's most unhelpful to grab a SLOGAN, rip it out of context, and somehow (with the disconnection of over two centuries) "examine" it. Rally-cries are just that..... in revolution, often the more vague that cry is, the better.
What has driven Australians as politically, economically, culturally they have moved further and further from the UK..... more and more independent..... less and less "English" and more "Australian?" Fast or slow..... peaceful or violent.... it can happen, where the masses have hope and power.
.
