Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
But if you choose to live in the Massachusetts from my example, you will live under laws that are ineffective and merely symbolic because of the laws of an adjacent state. What point is there in banning booze if there is no way to stop it from coming into the state? What point in regulating firearms if they are sold to anyone with money just a few miles away?
|
I will address the first part of your post when I wake up (about to go to bed) as the response will be lengthy.
As to the above snippet. You need to get out of the mindset of "banning" "outlawing". I see you mention Massachusetts a lot, I was born and raised there and I left 10 years ago because of the "banning" "outlawing" mindset.
To your point... Massachusetts could currently ban alcohol (the 21st amendment), but they don't. Because we live in a market economy and we already lived through the effects of a prohibition.
The situation you describe ALREADY happens in Massachusetts. Here is a list:
1. Massachusetts has Blue Laws - No alcohol sales on Sunday. People go to New Hampshire.
2. Massachusetts bans the sale of fireworks. People go to New Hampshire.
3. Massachusetts requires car insurance. People register their cars in New Hampshire.
4. Massachusetts has income tax and sales tax and excise tax and oppressive property tax and capital gains taxes. People move to New Hampshire.
So using the above example... Massachusetts already has created "criminals" of its citizens by its oppressive laws. Extrapolate this to the Federal Level. When you have so many oppressive laws that your citizens are breaking laws in their normal life... either your citizens are all criminals or your laws suck.
Free markets and competition would make this a great country again... not make it worse.
-dd