Forum Post: Free Market State.
Posted 12 years ago on April 26, 2012, 9:47 p.m. EST by TheEvilFuckaire
(208)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I recently watched The World Tomorrow http://assange.rt.com/ and something caught my attention, the idea of a free market state. I compared this to a little used, under taught, section of the constitution. Article 4 sections
- Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. and
- The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. In other words the central government is to know and respect the laws of the states, and all citizens of America have the right to follow any state law regardless of their physical location. I.E. If it is legal in Georgia you cannot arrest me here. The founding fathers wanted us to have the option of obeying the laws that made us the most free. In modern global terms imagine no borders to people only to governments. Go to the country that gives you what you believe is freedom. For some that may be Communism, for others it may be Capitalism, or Democracy, or a Dictatorship. No more fences for people, let the government that does the best job have the most people.
Are you saying the right to a concealed weapon in any other state should allow you to carry one in your state even if illegal?
I agree with the point that people should be free to move to whatever region of the world they favor. But don't the people already living there also have a right to limit immigration to prevent overcrowding, to preserve the very reason it is so attractive?
Why should the tiny country of Freedomia accept a million extra immigrants, overcrowding and ruining the peace of it's inhabitants? Why not instead put into effect the same rules and regulations that you find so attractive in your own countries.
I guess we will know for certain that we have lost our freedoms when emigration exceeds immigration.
the US is attractive because it is able to grow great amount of foods across it's latitude
Many South American countries can make the same claim, the reason they are poor, is not lack of resources, but because they have overpriced privatized utilities, owned by US Corporations. The 1% have taken their water and electricity and food and made them slaves in their own countries.
I am not saying anything for or against guns in this statement, but consider this. Guns are in the constitution, and cars are not. Why do all states respect my drivers license but not a gun license? But yes the least restrictive law should be adhered to in all 50 states is how I interpret Article 4 section 1 and 2 if I can have product A in New York I should be allowed to have it anywhere in America. Congress is supposed to decide the effect of these state laws on the nation. International borders are an issue due to the history of colonization in Africa, Asia, Polynesia, Australia, and the Americas by Europeans. Think of stealing another persons house, and then locking him and his family out, and at the same time locking me inside and telling me I owe you taxes because I live there. Why do you get to charge me rent in a house you stole at gunpoint?
Reading Sec 1 it states: public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. It does not say legislative or anything to do with laws. It does seem to include things like marriage certificates, law degrees, Etc. Driver licenses yes, why not gun licenses too? Not sure.
I don't think this section was designed to enable the least restrictive state to set the bar lower for every other state.
" The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. In other words the central government is to know and respect the laws of the states, and all citizens of America have the right to follow any state law regardless of their physical location. I.E. If it is legal in Georgia you cannot arrest me here."
Thats not the proper interpretation of this statement. If that were the case there would be no grounds for States Rights.