What Jeremy Bentham can tell us about the folly of Surrender Act 2. On Being a Colony of the EUSssr. #IABATO #GrubStreetJournal #TheThreePamphlateers @financialeyes @DavidGolemXIV @Wiki_Ballot @JoeBlob20


Brexit, Oceana or Eurasia The true choice all along? And still the Distractions, cod pieces and all.

   Uncategorized   4 Minutes


I abhor Political Correctness and I am an Unashamed Leftist Anarchist of the Bakunin/Proudhon/Kropotkin Variety. I am actually very conservative, I much prefer Burke to Bentham, although Bentham against the US Declaration of independence

and also Against Colonies appended to In defence of Usury
From this statement, if the foregoing observation be just,
the following deductions will come to be made.
are very good reads.
I prefer Chesterton and Belloc ( Distributism) and, Henry George to any form of Free Market Classical Liberalism or indeed Capitalism. Above all, though I can not stand one rule for the Posh and another for the not posh. Legal Snobbery or placing so-called Elites above the Law.

Meanwhile, Cox fiddles with his codpiece whilst Rome Burns or does it.

Brexit is beginning to show that Brexit all along has just been factions of the Oligarchy choosing between Oceana or Eurasia.

May Wants Eurasia and the others want Oceana.


What is it that would be the loss, suppose it to amount to
any thing, that a nation would sustain by the giving up of any
colony? The difference between the profit to be made by the
employing in that trade so much capital as would be employed in
it were the colony kept, and the profit that would be made by the
employment of the same capital in any other way, suppose in the
improvement of land. The loss is nothing, if the same capital
employed in the improvement of land would be more productive: and
it would be more productive by the amount of so much as would go
to form the annual rent: for deducting that rent, capital
employed in the improvement of land produces as much as if
employed in any other way. If the loss were any thing, would it
then amount to the whole difference between the profit upon that
trade, and the profit upon the next most profitable one? no: but
only to the difference between so much of that difference as
would be produced if the colony were retained in subjection, and
so much as would be produced if the colony were declared free.
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
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




Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

3 thoughts on “What Jeremy Bentham can tell us about the folly of Surrender Act 2. On Being a Colony of the EUSssr. #IABATO #GrubStreetJournal #TheThreePamphlateers @financialeyes @DavidGolemXIV @Wiki_Ballot @JoeBlob20

Leave a Reply