It does by not giving Congress the explicit power to do so; you know that’s how rights in the Constitution work. The Unumerated rights, which form the majority of the rights we have. Things such as Freedom of contract, freedom of movement, freedom of association. Freedom to marital privacy. These all exist old Dog, and the Constitution protects them all.
The declaration included among its grievances the King’s intent to prevent free trade. The Constitution was built explicitly as a document to protect economic rights the brits had robed the colonists of. Further, trade is freedom, people coming together, uncoerced, to create arrangements where they both benefit. Government may have a role in regulating these arrangement, but it has no role or legitimacy in stopping them. Just as it has no role in stopping someone from buying a firearm. When you move beyond controlling externalities of a right, to simply trying to stop it, is when you’ve gone too far.
Now I do not worship the economy, rather, It’s more like I worship the Founding Ideology of Individual Sovereignty as seen through the lens of Natural Law, to which Economics is one form of expression. It is an expression that shows this ideology is still in force, and is something that has made America different from much of the world. Not to mention a force underlying our success.
The more we step away from Free Trade, the more we damage not just our Economy, but the very institutions the Founders built for us. Institutions built on the premise that individuals are free.
You can’t destroy paradise to save it. You can’t take away freedom indefinitely to preserve it.
Argentina is the cautionary tale of what happens when you’re too nationalist at the expense of your economy.
> Of course the economy is an important factor in the well being of a nation and it’s people but it is not the only factor. No country is entirely self sufficient but if free trade causes the export of manufacturing facilities which would be crucial in the waging of a large scale conventional war
Nope STOP. I’m debunking this right now.
The most war crucial material is by far and away steel, and the American Iron and Steel Institute reported, in 2015, that the military accounted for only 3 percent of domestic steel consumption. I repeat, ***3%***.
“there is no probative evidence that imports of iron ore or semi-finished steel threaten to impair U.S. national security. There is neither evidence showing that the United States is dependent on imports of iron ore or semi-finished steel, nor evidence showing that such imports fundamentally threaten the ability of domestic producers to satisfy national security requirements.”
Further, most of the Steel we import, comes from countries like Canada and Mexico, nations that are nearby.
Like peak oil, this is a theoretical threat that has been concocted, not one where the numbers were crunched to see if it was a true, practical concern. Sensationalism, that’s all this is old dog.
> Delegating the regulation of trade and immigration to elected representatives of the people and the states is not “central planning”.
Yes it is; you’re taking the decision away from the citizenry who do the trade, and are putting it into the centralized hands of officials, or the bureaucrats they appoint.
Again, regulation is fine, but if you ban or restrict a non-violent non-criminal activity, you’re now violating liberty. Arbitrarily subordinating the individual to the collective.
> If unrestricted immigration swells the welfare rolls due to unemployment of American citizens
…? It… doesn’t. you keep saying this, but there is no proof of it. Economist have been on this issue for decades, and have never found evidence that Immigrants spur on the unemployment rate.
Old Dog? Quit narrowing your focus, and either look at the full effect of immigration on employment, or quit pretending that you care about this issue at all. Because if you cared, you would have tried to learn more on how labor markets work. You would include how immigrants effect Job Creation.
If immigration caused unemployment, then so would trade. But the reverse is true; more trade, and more involvement between countries creates more opportunities for jobs to exist, rather than the vice versa.