From Tea Chests to Tariff Walls

From Tea Chests to Tariff Walls: The Illusion of Freedom in the Era of Neo-Feudalism

On the night of December 16, 1773, Boston Harbor became the stage for one of the most iconic rebellions in human history. A group of North American colonists—descendants of British settlers who called America home but were still viewed by London as second-class subjects—decided they had had enough. Disguised as Mohawk Indians to mask their identities and symbolically demonstrate they were no longer "children" of the British Empire, they boarded three merchant ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into the freezing waters.

The Boston Tea Party was a revolt against a system where a political elite lobbied for their "cronies," sacrificing the public’s right to a free market and fair competition. 

This was more than 42 tons of cargo, worth approximately $1.7 million in today’s currency. Yet, this wasn't a mere act of vandalism. It was a direct strike against London’s "Tea Act," through which the British Parliament attempted to artificially bail out the struggling British East India Company. At the time, this massive corporation was a classic "state within a state"—it possessed its own private army and held immense influence in the halls of London, where members of Parliament themselves were shareholders receiving dividends. . By granting this company a monopoly and imposing tariffs without the colonists' consent, London birthed a slogan that changed history: "No taxation without representation!".

The Modern Rebirth of Protectionism

Paradoxically, today, two and a half centuries later, the very cradle of this freedom—the USA—has begun building new, invisible tariff walls. Modern "tea taxes" are no longer aimed across the ocean at an empire, but rather at geopolitical rivals and even allies. If once three pence per pound of tea sparked a revolution, today’s 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles or 25% duties on European steel are presented as guarantees of national security.

Under these "good intentions," something dangerously similar to neo-feudalism is beginning to emerge—a system where the free market becomes a mere facade, while the real rules are dictated by new corporate "lords" who trade for favorable tariffs in the corridors of Washington or Brussels. . In this global game, Latvia finds itself in an unenviable position. Unlike the superpowers, we are severing our trade ties with aggressor states not for profit or protectionism, but to safeguard the very concept of democracy and our national existence.

Are tariff wars a path to sovereignty, or rather a slow self-destruction of democracy in favor of the corporate elite? To understand the future, we must return to Boston Harbor and ask several questions: did the Boston colonists rebel because they wanted to be present at the decision-making table; does democracy in today’s era of tariff wars still provide us with this 'representation,' or have we returned to a point where our economic fate is determined by a handful of the 'chosen few' behind closed doors?

Architects of Neo-Feudalism: Tariffs for the Chosen

In the corridors of modern Washington, the ideals of the Boston Tea Party have been turned into their opposite.  . If the American colonists once fought against an unfair monopoly, today President Donald Trump has turned tariffs into a personal and often hysterical political weapon.  . This "Tariff Man’s" strategy resembles not subtle economic planning, but a geopolitical axe swung without regard for allies or the consequences within his own country.  . In this atmosphere, the free market dies, giving way to a neo-feudal order where rules are dictated not by efficiency, but by which corporate "lord" has gained the President's favor at that moment.

A striking example of this approach is the trade war with Canada—one of the closest U.S. allies. The Trump administration, citing questionable "national security risks," imposed heavy tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel. This move was no accident; it served as a direct gift to giant corporations like United States Steel, which had spent years lobbying Washington to eliminate cheaper and often higher-quality imports.

Modern tariff policy did not emerge in a vacuum; it has a very specific financial and legal foundation. Under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act, which was activated by the Trump administration in 2018, a 25% tariff was imposed on imported steel. This section allows the president to unilaterally restrict imports if they threaten 'national security. However, behind the veil of this legal manoeuvre lay years of long and costly preparation. This year has gone down in history as the beginning of a global trade war, when Washington declared tariffs not only against China but also against its closest allies, including the European Union and Canada.

State power is being used to create artificial advantages for one "lord" (a large corporation), while the rest of society—from small business owners to average buyers—pays the price through higher costs. 

Data show that industry giants such as United States Steel Corp and Nucor Corp, along with their trade associations, have invested tens of millions of dollars into the Washington lobbying machinery over the decades. According to U.S. lobbying disclosure reports, these corporations have strategically funded campaigns and think tanks to reinforce a specific narrative: that any import of cheaper steel from Canada or Europe is not merely economic competition, but an existential 'attack on American industry.

In 2021 the Biden administration understood that Section 232, introduced by Trump, was an excellent tool for geopolitical manoeuvring. Instead of repealing it, they used it as a leverage mechanism in negotiations with the European Union. Biden, much like Trump, was dependent on the so-called 'Rust Belt' voter—the workers of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. In these states, steel corporations and their unions wield immense political power.

Repealing the tariffs would mean infuriating these influential groups. Even if the tariffs harm the national economy as a whole, they have become a 'politically untouchable decision,' as no administration wants to be labeled as 'weak against foreign competition.'

Fact: In 2021, the U.S. and the EU agreed on a so-called 'tariff-rate quota' system. This means that while tariffs still exist, a specific quantity of European steel is allowed to enter duty-free. This is not a free market; it is regulated trade, where politicians manually determine who can trade and in what quantities.

The Consequences: Biden attempted to link Section 232 to climate goals. His administration pushed the idea of tariffs on steel produced with high carbon emissions (for example, from China).

Fact: This appears to be based on 'good intentions,' but in practice, it again serves as a cover to protect the same U.S. steel giants that are unable to withstand cheaper competition from abroad.

The Consequences: If Trump used tariffs as a 'hysterical weapon,' Biden transformed them into an 'institutional instrument.' In both cases, the result is the same: the free market ideals defined after the Boston Tea Party are sacrificed in favor of corporate stability and political expediency.

When tariffs are discussed as 'protection of national interests,' we often forget to ask: exactly which 'nation' is being protected? In today's economic reality, tariffs are often not a universal shield for the country, but rather a precisely targeted privilege for those with pockets deep enough to maintain armies of lobbyists in Washington.

This proves that neo-feudalism is not merely a fleeting political whim, but a profound systemic erosion where the interests of corporate lobbying have become more important than the very promise of democracy—free and fair competition.

In such a system, a tariff becomes a political commodity that a head of state can bestow upon their supporters, ignoring the fact that, according to Federal Reserve data, these same tariffs later trigger a rise in production costs and job losses in those industries that consume the steel.

The Lord (Corporation): Receives exclusive market rights and protection from competition. 

The Vassal (Politician): Receives campaign donations and political backing. 

The Peasant (Consumer): Pays the 'tithe' (inflated prices), with no power to influence the agreement.

A striking and almost absurd example of this approach is the trade war with Canada — one of the United States' closest allies. The Trump administration, under the pretext of highly questionable 'national security risks,' imposed heavy tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel. This move was no accident; it served as a direct gift to giant corporations like United States Steel, which had lobbied Washington for years to eliminate cheaper and often higher-quality imports. The result was a classic neo-feudal scheme: while the management of U.S. Steel could rub their hands at the inflated profits generated by an artificial shortage, ordinary Americans were struck from behind.

Fact: Steel producers and their trade associations have spent millions of dollars over the years on lobbying to convince politicians that foreign competition is an 'attack on America'.

The Consequences: While U.S. Steel’s stock prices and profits soared, more than 6.5 million workers in other U.S. industries — those that rely on steel, such as automakers and construction firms — faced a sharp increase in raw material costs.

This is where the face of neo-feudalism reveals itself: state power is used to create artificial advantages for a single 'lord' (a large corporation), while the rest of society — from small business owners to ordinary consumers — pays for it through higher prices.

Is this still democracy? This scheme poses a fundamental, paradoxical question about our modern system. Classical democracy dictates that laws are equal for everyone and serve the interests of the majority of society. In contrast, a system where a tariff becomes a 'commodity' that can be purchased through successful lobbying looks more like corporate feudalism.

This 'economy of the chosen' not only distorts the market but also erodes trust in the state. If the rules are written to favor those with access to the corridors of power, the principle of 'representation' for which the Boston rebels fought becomes nothing more than a distant historical footnote.

The Mirage of the American Dream

History books often paint 1776 as a sharp dividing line—a moment when the old world collapsed to make way for a new, idealistic order. However, economic structures and power mechanisms rarely submit to such rapid transformations.

Although the Boston rebellion ended political dependence on the British Crown, it did not destroy the roots of mercantilism itself. . 

Rather, it was a moment when economic control changed hands, not character.

This paradox is most directly characterised by the concept of the "American Dream". It is no coincidence that the word "dream" is included in this definition—something distant, ideal, and often unreachable. It serves as a powerful motivator for individual action while the system as a whole remains unshakable in its hierarchy.y.  It is a promised opportunity for anyone to become a "lord," even though statistical reality shows that the majority remain in the role of the "peasant," paying tariff duties on goods they are forced to buy by political necessity.

We are currently witnessing a moment where the masks are falling. Hysterical tariff increases and overt protectionism no longer attempt to masquerade as free market ideals. This is a signal that the fragmented world order being born before our eyes is not a new mistake, but rather a return to a historical reality that never truly ended.

Ultimately, we haven’t strayed far from the Boston waterfront. If back then the rebellion began against a distant empire and its lobbied monopoly, today’s tariff walls show that the circle has closed. We have not reached a new pinnacle of democracy but have returned to the starting point—an era where protectionist fiefdoms once again rule instead of the free market.

It turns out that the path 'from Boston to Washington' has not been a progression away from the past, but a slow and deliberate return to neo-feudalism. Back then, unjust tariffs were fought with revolution; today, we accept them as an inevitable reality, quietly paying an ever-higher price for the mutual dealings between mega-corporations and politicians.

The modern moral: 

Tea is still being thrown into the sea, only this time — 

with our own silent, yet costly, consent.