It's clearly a privilege. It's the exact opposite of a right. We have borders for a reason and any goods you want to bring into America are "allowed" by the government (our representatives) or disallowed, based on whether or not a tariff is paid.
The U.S. government is here to protect the people of America. That can be done without protectionist policies (3% is not protectionism) but while still charging for the PRIVILEGE of bringing foreign goods into America and selling them. The American markets belong to the American people. If you want to gain access to the American markets, you must pay for the PRIVILEGE and that money will be used to pay for the Constitutional parts of government. This way the American people get low priced imports, and the Constitutional protections of our government without violating the rights of anyone. --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is clearly a right unless the government can show good evidence on > why they are justified in preventing a importer from trading with a > foreign company or why they are justified in charging a tax for the > trade. If they can show case by case before a jury with the right of > appeal by the defendent their justification then they can prevent the > trade or charge a tax for the trade but the government does not have > a right to appeal if it is a crimnal charge.--- In > [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > Selling foreign goods in America IS NOT A RIGHT....it is a > PRIVILEGE. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <cottondrop@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Buying and selling is a right if both the buyer and seller > agreed, > > > the government has no right to say the seller can not sell or the > > > buyer buy goods and services that do not harm non contractual > > > parties. Now true if every property owner has the right to secde > from > > > the government a tax could be a membership fee and actually a > users > > > fee not a tax. If there was a fee on both imports and exports if > the > > > secding merchant wished to trade with people in the US they would > > > still be paying the tax, if they traded only with foreign > companies > > > yet the foreign companies traded with the US the seceding > merchant > > > would be paying the tax indirectly but if they did not trade with > the > > > US or their trades with others can not connected with the US then > > > they will not pay the tax. > > > Outside trade may not be a problem with those that live on the > > > border or on the coast but it might for landlock property > > > owners. > > > Still it could be argued that the US or a state has no right > to > > > landlock a property owner unless the property owner is a clear > > > security risk. > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > > > > No. That isn't what I said. Perhaps you should read it > again. > > > > > > > > I will go on record as saying, "Not all taxation is theft and > not > > > all > > > > taxation is force." > > > > > > > > I consider any tax on your rights to be an act of force. I do > not > > > > consider extremely low and flat rate tariffs that do not hamper > the > > > > ability of people to trade in America to be initiating force. > You > > > can > > > > speak to any nobel prize winning economist you like to see if 3% > > > > hampers their ability to trade. People do NOT have the RIGHT > to > > > bring > > > > goods into America to sell in our markets. This is a > PRIVILEDGE, > > > not > > > > a right. > > > > > > > > Usage fees & excise taxes can be avoided by not using those > services > > > > and tariffs can be avoided by purchasing goods made in > America. > > > This > > > > means there is no force what-so-ever. If you CHOOSE to buy > imported > > > > goods, you CHOOSE to willingly pay the extremely low tariffs > > > > associated with it. The overall price of the product does not > go > > > up, > > > > and in fact compared to our current tariffs, it would most > likely > > > go down. > > > > > > > > I say using tariffs and excise taxes (which are not the > initiation > > > of > > > > force) we can fund 100% of the Constitutional parts of > government. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Paul <ptireland@> > > > > > > Also, as far as funding a limited government, it can be > funded > > > > > > completely without taxing income, but not completely > without > > > taxation. > > > > > > This is the true dilemma of real libertarianism (aka...NOT > > > > > > anarchy). > > > > > > > > > > So then according to you, initiating a little force is ok if > it is > > > > only a little force and for a good cause? > > > > > > > > > > BWS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
