undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgjm111d ago0 comments

Or perhaps they mean the same thing as was meant by the slogan when it was first coined, around the time of the American Revolution, and the same thing as was meant by the women's suffragists who used it in the late 19th century.

Maybe in some sense "no taxation without suffrage" would be more accurate, but it would be a worse slogan. In any case, "no taxation without representation" is a well known phrase, it's been around for over 250 years, and I don't think much is achieved by nitpicking its wording.

0 comments

bubblethink1d ago

You do have congressional representatives and senators who represent you and your interests and can take action on your behalf just as they would if you were a citizen. I have had decent luck in getting assistance from them despite not being a citizen.

greycol23h ago

Yes and colonial Americans had personages they didn't choose representing their interests at court so clearly that was not what they meant by it, let alone as members of the British empire their interests were represented by the king the highest position in the land...

itsmek1d ago

The person you're replying to knows this. You're missing their point.

bubblethink22h ago

To exist is to be taxed. If you exist at all in the US, you will be taxed. You may even be taxed even if you are not in the US. So saying that taxation somehow implies voting ability would be quite absurd. This doesn't hold true anywhere in the world.

gjm11OP21h ago

When someone says "No taxation without representation!" they don't mean "As a matter of fact, no one ever gets taxed by a government they don't have the power to vote for or against". (If that were true, there'd be no need to demand it.)

They mean "I would like our government to stop taxing people who don't get to vote for it" or "It is unjust for a government to tax people who don't get to vote for it" or something of that sort.

The fact that things aren't already the way you want them to be doesn't make it absurd to demand that they change to be that way.

(You might argument that governments don't give a damn what anyone demands and for that reason it is absurd to demand change. But I think that in fact governments do take notice of what people want, if they fear what the people might do if they don't get it. Whether that's voting them out of office or putting their heads on pikes or anything in between. And they will take more notice if more people are demanding whatever it is, and a large part of the point of saying things like "No taxation without representation!" is to get other people who aren't in the government to sympathize with your cause and maybe start demanding the same thing. So I think it's manifestly not absurd to make such demands, as such. Some particular demands -- "No taxation without $1M/year universal basic income!" -- would be absurd, but this one seems obviously not to be in that category.)

1 more reply

itsmek17h ago

I don't know man, I'm just telling you what I see in the conversation:

OP: Complaint about taxation without representation

A: Acktually it's called suffrage not representation

B: This phrase has been in use forever and people use it interchangeably when they mean the other. It's a slogan, chill

A: I've had great representation without suffrage!

C: You're missing their point

A: Taxation without representation isn't an issue

I feel like I'm chatting with an LLM with a broken input box.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse