Look at a globe. The USA is blessed. We have fantastic climates, soils, water, harbors, minerals, agricultural land, and huge oceans on two sides and a friendly small (in population) country on one side, and Mexico (a country the USA defeated in war over 150 years ago).
Trade treaties with the countries in the Americas may be necessary, but no tariffs. Tariffs are just taxes on the consumer.
The New World doesn't need the Old World. To hell with 'em. Didn't our ancestors flee the Old World?
As to governments in the USA, none would be my choice. Local communities of people would solve local issues on their own. Trade between anyone in the Americas would be open and free. Money would be what the market decided it would be between two parties or more in a voluntary contract.
States *do* enter into treaties with other states. Here in New Jersey, the state government has entered into separate treaties/agreements with neighboring state governments regarding transportation between the territories.
Their primary concern seemed to be keeping hot heads from starting a war or getting into entangling alliances, but they also warned against this kind of stuff and tariffs between the states, which I'm surprised they haven't been idiotic enough to put in place yet. And if I recall correctly this issue played a big roll in the civil war anyway. Washington setting the tariffs I mean.
And one could argue that by forcing companies to collect sales tax for other states, that they are there already.
I got out of the guitar business just about the time they were forcing everyone who sells on-line to collect sales tax. If any of the states like Ca. came after me for not collecting it would have been a nightmare. I probably sold about a thousand guitars a year just to Ca. and they told businesses they had to retroactively pay up.
I would say that one of the things that helps our economy the most is having what amounts to fifty fairly free trade zones, that could have been in jeopardy if the anti-feds got their way, especially because they wanted something more akin to "democracy".
But then again, if we had less or no government would there be a need for such high taxes and tariffs?
I'm no fan of state governments, either. Your article simply made me think of how state governments already do these kind of treaties, whether the old factions in the federalist debate wanted it or not :-)
As always . . . Coercive civil authority is inherently, intrinsically evil. #CCAIIIE
I'd say most of their arguments haven't stood the test of time. They also argued that States would be more likely to produce Standing armies and that the anti-feds shouldn't worry about adding anything to the constitution that would forbid it.
Look at a globe. The USA is blessed. We have fantastic climates, soils, water, harbors, minerals, agricultural land, and huge oceans on two sides and a friendly small (in population) country on one side, and Mexico (a country the USA defeated in war over 150 years ago).
Trade treaties with the countries in the Americas may be necessary, but no tariffs. Tariffs are just taxes on the consumer.
The New World doesn't need the Old World. To hell with 'em. Didn't our ancestors flee the Old World?
As to governments in the USA, none would be my choice. Local communities of people would solve local issues on their own. Trade between anyone in the Americas would be open and free. Money would be what the market decided it would be between two parties or more in a voluntary contract.
No government, no peace.
Put the money in the valise…
States *do* enter into treaties with other states. Here in New Jersey, the state government has entered into separate treaties/agreements with neighboring state governments regarding transportation between the territories.
New Jersey & Delaware -- https://www.drba.net/
New Jersey & Pennsylvania -- https://www.drpa.org/
New Jersey & New York -- https://www.panynj.gov/port-authority/en/index.html
Their primary concern seemed to be keeping hot heads from starting a war or getting into entangling alliances, but they also warned against this kind of stuff and tariffs between the states, which I'm surprised they haven't been idiotic enough to put in place yet. And if I recall correctly this issue played a big roll in the civil war anyway. Washington setting the tariffs I mean.
And one could argue that by forcing companies to collect sales tax for other states, that they are there already.
I got out of the guitar business just about the time they were forcing everyone who sells on-line to collect sales tax. If any of the states like Ca. came after me for not collecting it would have been a nightmare. I probably sold about a thousand guitars a year just to Ca. and they told businesses they had to retroactively pay up.
I would say that one of the things that helps our economy the most is having what amounts to fifty fairly free trade zones, that could have been in jeopardy if the anti-feds got their way, especially because they wanted something more akin to "democracy".
But then again, if we had less or no government would there be a need for such high taxes and tariffs?
I'm no fan of state governments, either. Your article simply made me think of how state governments already do these kind of treaties, whether the old factions in the federalist debate wanted it or not :-)
As always . . . Coercive civil authority is inherently, intrinsically evil. #CCAIIIE
I'd say most of their arguments haven't stood the test of time. They also argued that States would be more likely to produce Standing armies and that the anti-feds shouldn't worry about adding anything to the constitution that would forbid it.