On The Subject Of Commercial Activity

 

A thought provoking question by: Mathew Wolfe

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?