3 ms·

> More generally: no western government recognizes a "fundamental right to commerce" such that restrictions on commerce require the existence of "bad" conduct w

by defen 10y ago

> More generally: no western government recognizes a "fundamental right to commerce" such that restrictions on commerce require the existence of "bad" conduct worthy of punishment. That's very interesting. I'm not going to argue with your claim, because I assume you know more about it than I do. But it's a very strange idea, because in many ways commerce is more fundamental than anything in the Constitution or its amendments. Take away everything in the Bill of Rights, all the freedoms defined in the Constitution and our heritage of common law, take it all away and you can still have a society. It would be a terrible, awful society that no one would choose to live in (probably something like the DPRK) but it would still be a society. But without commerce, it is simply not possible to even have a society. I would go even further and say that a vanishingly small percentage of people would even be able to survive without commerce. So in a certain sense it's just as important as air, food, and water.

rayiner 10y ago
I don't think commerce is more fundamental. Humans survived for hundreds of thousands of years without commerce as we know it. Even at the time of the founding, the vast majority of Americans were living on mostly self-sufficient farms. Commerce in the modern sense is enabled by government: protection of property rights, imposition of a common currency, protection against pirates on the high seas. You can argue that government isn't necessary to enable commerce. That you could have a world that has commerce without government. But even if that were true, in the world we do have, commerce is built upon the infrastructure provided by government. Just like the road system. And the government is thus entitled to regulate commerce just like it regulates left-hand turns on roads. Of course, this is just an argument that regulation of monetary transactions is consistent with the assumptions underlying our institutions. I have no opinion on whether money-laundering controls are a good idea or not.
- defen 10y ago
  > Even at the time of the founding, the vast majority of Americans were living on mostly self-sufficient farms People still bartered, which is recognized and taxed as commerce by the US government. They did not build or repair their own tools, for example - the village blacksmith was usually the most important man in town (or the region). You could argue that once they had a set of tools and land, people could be self-sufficient, but they still engaged in trade. And they would not have been able to be self-sufficient without trading beforehand - how else would you get a horse?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    But if you ordered some horseshoes made and then refused to take delivery, the blacksmith would still sue you in a government court.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      There are a wide variety of commerce systems that require no government courts. Consider the Silent Trade, the old system used by Africans and Indians to trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_trade Realistically, in Colonial America, reputation systems and the like were probably used far more than courts. In fact, even today, extra-legal systems are widely used. My company buys SAAS services primarily from the US and Australia, but we have little ability to use the courts in either of those countries. How do we know Atlassian or Cloudflare won't take our rupees and run?
    - defen 10y ago
      Back then, I highly doubt you would get sued. Your reputation would be ruined and you'd have trouble ordering anything else, but I think we're getting a bit away from the point I was trying to make. "But even if that were true, in the world we do have, commerce is built upon the infrastructure provided by government. Just like the road system. And the government is thus entitled to regulate commerce just like it regulates left-hand turns on roads." So by this argument, if the first amendment didn't exist, the government would have the right to regulate speech that uses public infrastructure (anything on public airwaves, the internet, delivered via the mail system, etc)? To make things more concrete, could the US government make a law "No one shall manufacture or sell a wallet"? (to pick the first thing that I saw). Note that I personally am kind of ok with this, because the whole point of being sovereign is that you can do what you want; but I'm interested in exploring the justifications used to get people to buy into the system.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        > > Back then, I highly doubt you would get sued Common law contract and tort principles were well-developed back then, and indeed were created for situations like ordering horseshoes from the village blacksmith, or ordering a new axle for your windmill.[1] > So by this argument, if the first amendment didn't exist, the government would have the right to regulate speech that uses public infrastructure (anything on public airwaves, the internet, delivered via the mail system, etc)? No, because the first amendment does not create the right to free speech, but recognizes a right to free speech that already existed. But if that wasn't the case, then I think the answer would be yes. > So by this argument, if the first amendment didn't exist, the government would have the right to regulate speech that uses public infrastructure (anything on public airwaves, the internet, delivered via the mail system, etc)? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_v_Baxendale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_v_Baxendale
ellius 10y ago
Virtually all commerce in modern society is intermediated by fiat money, which is a product of the state. People are free to trade goods with Monopoly money if they want to, but if they want the security and backing of the United States, including the force and authority of its agents and courts, then they use the US dollar, and are subsequently subject to US law.
- defen 10y ago
  I'm not an expert on this topic, but I'm fairly sure that if you traded gold, or Monopoly money, or anything not fiat currency, for goods & services, you would still be taxed. The right to tax does not arise out of the use of fiat currency.
  - ellius 10y ago
    I'm not talking about tax. I'm referring to rayiner's initial point, which is that "right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with it. Businesses such as banks that intermediate financial transactions with state currency are subject to those states' regulations. It's not "wrong" to not enforce money laundering controls, but it is illegal, because you operate within US jurisdiction under a US charter trading US currency. If you don't want to follow the laws, go trade something else somewhere else. (To this point, the Russians and Chinese have been making a point for years of getting away from the dollar, specifically to get out from under the America's thumb.)

by defen 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

I don't think commerce is more fundamental. Humans survived for hundreds of thousands of years without commerce as we know it. Even at the time of the founding, the vast majority of Americans were living on mostly self-sufficient farms. Commerce in the modern sense is enabled by government: protection of property rights, imposition of a common currency, protection against pirates on the high seas. You can argue that government isn't necessary to enable commerce. That you could have a world that has commerce without government. But even if that were true, in the world we do have, commerce is built upon the infrastructure provided by government. Just like the road system. And the government is thus entitled to regulate commerce just like it regulates left-hand turns on roads. Of course, this is just an argument that regulation of monetary transactions is consistent with the assumptions underlying our institutions. I have no opinion on whether money-laundering controls are a good idea or not.

defen 10y ago
> Even at the time of the founding, the vast majority of Americans were living on mostly self-sufficient farms People still bartered, which is recognized and taxed as commerce by the US government. They did not build or repair their own tools, for example - the village blacksmith was usually the most important man in town (or the region). You could argue that once they had a set of tools and land, people could be self-sufficient, but they still engaged in trade. And they would not have been able to be self-sufficient without trading beforehand - how else would you get a horse?
- rayiner 10y ago
  But if you ordered some horseshoes made and then refused to take delivery, the blacksmith would still sue you in a government court.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    There are a wide variety of commerce systems that require no government courts. Consider the Silent Trade, the old system used by Africans and Indians to trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_trade Realistically, in Colonial America, reputation systems and the like were probably used far more than courts. In fact, even today, extra-legal systems are widely used. My company buys SAAS services primarily from the US and Australia, but we have little ability to use the courts in either of those countries. How do we know Atlassian or Cloudflare won't take our rupees and run?
  - defen 10y ago
    Back then, I highly doubt you would get sued. Your reputation would be ruined and you'd have trouble ordering anything else, but I think we're getting a bit away from the point I was trying to make. "But even if that were true, in the world we do have, commerce is built upon the infrastructure provided by government. Just like the road system. And the government is thus entitled to regulate commerce just like it regulates left-hand turns on roads." So by this argument, if the first amendment didn't exist, the government would have the right to regulate speech that uses public infrastructure (anything on public airwaves, the internet, delivered via the mail system, etc)? To make things more concrete, could the US government make a law "No one shall manufacture or sell a wallet"? (to pick the first thing that I saw). Note that I personally am kind of ok with this, because the whole point of being sovereign is that you can do what you want; but I'm interested in exploring the justifications used to get people to buy into the system.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      > > Back then, I highly doubt you would get sued Common law contract and tort principles were well-developed back then, and indeed were created for situations like ordering horseshoes from the village blacksmith, or ordering a new axle for your windmill.[1] > So by this argument, if the first amendment didn't exist, the government would have the right to regulate speech that uses public infrastructure (anything on public airwaves, the internet, delivered via the mail system, etc)? No, because the first amendment does not create the right to free speech, but recognizes a right to free speech that already existed. But if that wasn't the case, then I think the answer would be yes. > So by this argument, if the first amendment didn't exist, the government would have the right to regulate speech that uses public infrastructure (anything on public airwaves, the internet, delivered via the mail system, etc)? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_v_Baxendale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_v_Baxendale

ellius 10y ago

Virtually all commerce in modern society is intermediated by fiat money, which is a product of the state. People are free to trade goods with Monopoly money if they want to, but if they want the security and backing of the United States, including the force and authority of its agents and courts, then they use the US dollar, and are subsequently subject to US law.

defen 10y ago
I'm not an expert on this topic, but I'm fairly sure that if you traded gold, or Monopoly money, or anything not fiat currency, for goods & services, you would still be taxed. The right to tax does not arise out of the use of fiat currency.
- ellius 10y ago
  I'm not talking about tax. I'm referring to rayiner's initial point, which is that "right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with it. Businesses such as banks that intermediate financial transactions with state currency are subject to those states' regulations. It's not "wrong" to not enforce money laundering controls, but it is illegal, because you operate within US jurisdiction under a US charter trading US currency. If you don't want to follow the laws, go trade something else somewhere else. (To this point, the Russians and Chinese have been making a point for years of getting away from the dollar, specifically to get out from under the America's thumb.)