2 ms·
> 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 t
by 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 agoBut if you ordered some horseshoes made and then refused to take delivery, the blacksmith would still sue you in a government court.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoThere 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 agoBack 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