Skip to main content

Why did some American colonists engage in smuggling and piracy?

The main reason why some American colonists turned to smuggling (more common) and piracy (less common) was economic.  Simply put, it was a good way to make money.  In addition, many people had so little respect for the laws they were breaking that they did not feel that it was morally wrong to do so.


In many (perhaps all) times and places, people have been motivated by the desire to get rich.  When people find a way that they can make money, they will want to pursue it.  Smuggling and piracy were good ways to make money.  Goods that were legally imported into the colonies tended to be expensive.  American goods sold through legal channels tended to get a lower price than smugglers could get if they sold directly to foreign buyers.  In other words, people could make a lot more money by smuggling or engaging in piracy than they could by obeying the law.  This is always a strong incentive to break the law.


It is also easier for most people to break the law if they do not have much respect for that law.  If people do not believe that laws are just, they will not feel morally bound to obey them.  Many colonists did not feel that the laws they were breaking were just.  They felt that it was wrong for the British government to be able to tell them who they had to buy from and sell to.  They did not feel it was all that wrong to rob foreigners, many of whom were their country’s enemies anyway.  Because they did not feel the laws were just, they were more willing to break them so long as they felt they could do so without getting caught.


In colonial times, many Americans smuggled and/or turned to piracy because those were lucrative things to do and because they did not feel morally bound by the laws that banned those activities.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more