Contracts and Freedom

I feel that the distinction I was making in Nebbia is to fine to me clear without some explanation. First I believe that taxes are a legitimate tool of the government and that the government may use them to address a wide verity of goals and ills. Second that direct government interference in contracts (or commercial actions) requires justification to a degree that taxes don't.

By limiting the freedom of contract the government is infringing on the rights of citizens it must then prove that by doing so it protects the rights of other citizens. I also think it must prove that their isn't a clearly less intrusive means to do so.

Limitations which allow substantial room for discretion are less intrusive than direct mandates. In fact mandates may rise to the point where it is questionable if contract is actually being freely entered into. That a contract be freely entered into is essential.

It is my contention that price setting prevents parties from freely entering into contract in a was lesser limitation do not. It is on this basis I think the court should have found the New York price controls unacceptable.

I think it would be good to have the regulation of monopolies and standard rates bases on statutory rights. Perhaps they could be worded something like this: "Items or Services offered for general sale shall not be altered in price based on the purchaser or any of the qualities of the purchaser." and "The citizens of the United States, any State, or any area within a State shall have the right and power through their respective governments to regulate the business of a monopoly or of any business functioning as a monopoly within their respective area."