Against USMCA and for Gun Sanctuary Zones and Militia

Does peaceful trade require government power to be effected? Government power in this country is supposed to rest on the consent of the people as a body. Does that body have any right to control trade of its members? Perhaps in wartime, there might be such a power, but in peacetime such a right cannot be justified. Citizens of the U.S.A. should not have their government controlling their trade with Mexico and Canada or any other country with which we are not at war. Trade is a matter of property rights, of which the freedom to exchange is included.

People acting as a body comes down to majority rule implemented by government power, and that’s fraught with immense infringements of rights unless its objects are heavily proscribed so that they do not suppress rights. In our system, the government has gained the power to act upon every area of life of everyone, and it’s all a massive infringement of property rights. It’s wrong, and we pay a heavy price for allowing this power to prevail and control us. Trade is such an object of personal scope and personal property right that should be strictly off limits for government action or the action of the people as a body. Unfortunately, it is not, and the government routinely passes trade laws.

The USMCA is a bi-partisan bill that’s a Trump bill, but it’s still bad. Apart from the general rights argument against it, which applies to all such trade bills, it has a variety of other objectionable features that tell us that it should be trashed. See here for 5 of them.

The last time I looked, we were still not a free country. Having elections, which is supposed to mean we consent, doesn’t make us free. It makes many people think they’re free, but there is a problem. If the elected officials gain the powers to control major areas of our lives and decision rights, if they gain the power to allocate half of our income to their favored projects and wars as well as to themselves, and they do have this power, then elections palpably do not make us free. They might make us free, but only if those elected reduced government to a bare minimum. This cannot happen when most voters actually endorse big governments and growth in governments’ laws, regulations, restrictions, wars, education, health, energy, wealth transfers, and taxes.

Governments at all levels from local to national are more and more trying to control social matters that are also none of their business. Referring to someone as he or she is coming under legal attack. Saying that you hate someone or something opens you to legal attack. This social control movement shows that government power has no limit once it’s viewed as resting on the people’s consent and simultaneously not restricted; but no such restriction exists as long as the people (a majority) think that government can and should do anything or act upon any object of their lives. This is very nearly what many people think, which is that any law goes if it makes things better, at least better in their minds. This is the progressive delusion that’s so rotten and rotting the society away into a mass of totalitarian rot.

There is a counterattack brewing that’s revolutionary, but to succeed it cannot be radical enough. One focal point is “guns”. The activity in Virginia counties to form militia and gun sanctuary zones is the best news I’ve heard in a very long time.

Share

9:41 am on December 20, 2019