Quote:
Originally Posted by davidd
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
|
I am a great proponent of laws being enforced, even when I disagree with them. The very reason for that is that if stupid laws are effectively enforced, people will rebel against them. If people can easily circumvent them, though, they won't care.
Look at Prohibition. At the national level, it only lasted for 13 years. At the state level, it lasted for ages in some places (Mississippi).
The open-to-underground markets that are created by differences in laws are not free markets. Free markets require consistent openness. Without that, they are merely unfree but uncontrollable markets.
Personally, I am in favor of giving people the largest amount of freedom that is compatible with the largest amount of freedom for all others. For that, consistency is needed - the smaller the areas controlling their laws, the more random and frivolous they will be. The more people disagree with each other, the better.