Monday, November 18, 2013

On The Subject Of Commercial Activity

On the subject of commercial activity, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts have the authority to regulate commercial activity. This is messing with my head a bit. If I am a free sovereign man, and the governed must give consent to be governed, is it not my RIGHT to engage in any commercial activity I chose? Why must I submit to be regulated in my pursuit to make a living? Furthermore, if I chose NOT to consent, and engage in commercial activity anyway, what lawful authority do they have to use force against me to get my compliance? If I chose to have a taxi service, I would be "driving" and subject to the regulations in the motor vehicle act. If driving is a privilege and not a right, then who has authority to grant me permission to exercise this "privilege"? Are we not equal under the law? If I'm in court for acting commercially on the roads, and I break some traffic rule, what JURISDICTION do they have? There is still NO CONTRACT, and no injured party. Can someone clear this up for me. Am I misunderstanding something here?

1 comment:

  1. Trade vs Commerce.

    Trade = substance for substance.
    Commerce = Credit (promise) for substance.