what was the point of the interstate commerce clause?

[Anarchist420]

as rothbard pointed out, it wasn't to guarantee free trade between the States as the States were already of the same nation (i.e., culture, language, geographic proximity) and protectionism (i.e., economic nationalism) would not be practiced by sovereign States against each other of the same nation.

so doesnt that mean that people like pat buchanan support protectionism not necessarily just for the american worker's jobs or to bring prosperity, but because they dont want ideas they deem foreign to come here? dont they fear that free trade will endanger american culture?

so anyway.. why is the commerce clause there? was it so the Anglo-American elite could control trade (kind of like they do now with GATT, NAFTA, etc. which was simply an outgrowth of the pre-FDR mercantilism)? or was it for some other reason?

and why was nafta a few hundred pages full of regulations if it was really free trade? why would anyone who wanted free trade bother to write that much?

 

[IronWing]

and why was nafta a few hundred pages full of regulations if it was really free trade? why would anyone who wanted free trade bother to write that much?

NAFTA is not a free trade agreement. It is a free capital agreement designed to facilitate international labor arbitrage, allowing the free repatriation of profit while preventing the free movement of labor.

 

[shady28]

as rothbard pointed out, it wasn't to guarantee free trade between the States as the States were already of the same nation (i.e., culture, language, geographic proximity) and protectionism (i.e., economic nationalism) would not be practiced by sovereign States against each other of the same nation.

I don't know why you say this, or who the hell 'Rothbard' is, but he's wrong.

Trade wars and protectionism would most definitely be practiced by different states within the same nation in the context of the time the Constitution was formed. People did not see themselves as American, but rather Virginian etc etc (if not British).

Under the original Articles of Confederation that preceded the constitution, states could and did levy tariffs on imports / exports with other states.


http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_arti.html

"
The new nation was unable to repel the encroachments of the British on the borders set by the Treaty of Paris, because the states would not pay the requested taxes. The Spanish similarly encroached unfettered on the southern borders of the United States.
The United States also had no power to regulate commerce between and among the states, leading to bitter tariff wars between them. This type of in-fighting did not help alleviate the economic depression that set in after the war ended."


Prior to this, the central Gov't could only 'beg' for money from the states, as a sort of favor (no I'm not kidding). It was basically a charity.

 

[zanejohnson]

has to do with the railroad.

 

[Anarchist420]

Trade wars and protectionism would most definitely be practiced by different states within the same nation in the context of the time the Constitution was formed. People did not see themselves as American, but rather Virginian etc etc (if not British). Under the original Articles of Confederation that preceded the constitution, states could and did levy tariffs on imports / exports with other states.

you're right about Jefferson seeing virginia as his country, but many States did not tax imports or if they did it was 1% coupled with a 1% export tax... Virginia did that. but the Constitution has never provided a balance between free trade/order (if you even believe in that dichotomy, i dont think it would usually apply as it sure didnt in the earliest stages of nature)either and protectionism was even what made lincoln invade the pro-trade States.

i also think that having an arbitrary power use force in attempt to balance things is almost always going to fail and be biased because of the desire of some men to be that arbitrary power.

and i dont think that a confederation would have trade wars for very long as the old swiss confederation was stable until they had two different religions.

 

[Jhhnn]

what was the point of the interstate commerce clause?
as rothbard pointed out, it wasn't to guarantee free trade between the States as the States were already of the same nation (i.e., culture, language, geographic proximity) and protectionism (i.e., economic nationalism) would not be practiced by sovereign States against each other of the same nation.

Because Rothbard was a right wing looney tune who engaged in revisionist history to suit his agenda. The commerce clause codifies what he merely alleges to be fact.

 

[Anarchist420]

Because Rothbard was a right wing looney tune who engaged in revisionist history to suit his agenda. The commerce clause codifies what he merely alleges to be fact.

He became more right wing toward the end because of all the monkeys committing crime in his home town. dont forget that he allied with the new left and was against nationalism.

what's wrong with being a "looney tune" (as some would put it) especially if you havent offered to prove him wrong?
"looney toons" make the world a better place imo, life would be boring without them.
i think his intelligence quotient (mental age/chronological age) may have 340 when he was 5 and he was demonstrably brighter even than his protege dr. paul and his mentor mises.

how do you know the commerce clause wasnt for control by the elite? do you think control by an elite is necessary for the people to rule?

most people didnt want the commerce clause before 1860 and before 1790 it was about 10-1 at least in RI. in massachusetts, fascist bodoin didnt get more than 11% of the popular vote. it turned out that he made things worse by giving all of the property owned by productive people to people speculating on the public debt.

increasing revenues doesnt mean that bills will get paid, does it? doesnt it just mean that the debtor can continue to pay interest/service debt?

 

[Jhhnn]

He became more right wing toward the end because of all the monkeys committing crime in his home town. dont forget that he allied with the new left and was against nationalism.

what's wrong with being a "looney tune" (as some would put it) especially if you havent offered to prove him wrong?
"looney toons" make the world a better place imo, life would be boring without them.
i think his intelligence quotient (mental age/chronological age) may have 340 when he was 5 and he was demonstrably brighter even than his protege dr. paul and his mentor mises.

how do you know the commerce clause wasnt for control by the elite? do you think control by an elite is necessary for the people to rule?

most people didnt want the commerce clause before 1860 and before 1790 it was about 10-1 at least in RI. in massachusetts, fascist bodoin didnt get more than 11% of the popular vote. it turned out that he made things worse by giving all of the property owned by productive people to people speculating on the public debt.

increasing revenues doesnt mean that bills will get paid, does it? doesnt it just mean that the debtor can continue to pay interest/service debt?

You're wandering off into the weeds. Rothbard assumes that the States won't levy tariffs against each other in a truly naive fashion that only Libertopians can embrace.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thought is triggered by associations. In order to stop thought, especially obsessive thought, one needs to reduce the energy we supply to it. That can be done in many ways, drugs of various kinds that reduce the anxieties that provide that energy, but, via self healing via understanding. Thought is fear, the fear of feeling, terror of the unknown. But there is no truly unknown fear, only fearful events the memory of which we repress. Therapy that opens the door to feeling via actual feeling in a therapeutic setting is the best cure. But one can also practice meditation, remembering that thought is empty. We hate ourselves and thought is a way to make ourselves miserable as we think we deserve to be. We can't relax or reality, peace of mind might come rushing in and when that happens we are in the exact place we were when we first experienced fear. We have to learn, therefore, to become once again open and vulnerable, kinder to ourselves.

We can simply remember not to feed thought with recriminations for having them but return gently to dismissing them as irrelevant and useless things. It helps to go for walks and simply enjoy the world we see. The answers to the worlds problems aren't going to be solved by people with troubled minds. Relax and be happy. And if that's hard and frustrating just try again, always without stressing about failure.

 

[Anarchist420]

Rothbard assumes that the States won't levy tariffs against each other in a truly naive fashion that only Libertopians can embrace.

you disagree just because you believe it is naive to believe what Rothbard did?

i mean, we might as well have a one world govt if we dont want tariffs to be imposed on anyone. why dont you think that having more sovereigns will set a good example? has the empire ever set a good example? has bombing the fuck out of the world to make it safe for democracy really been that pleasant to most people?

you've been more substantial than that and i see little reason you cant be substantial again.