Borders are strictly a property rights issue, immigration is strickly
a property rights issue, trade with a people is a property rights
issue, American markets as a whole do not belong to the American
people as a whole they are goods and lands owned by one or more
individuals. So it is a right, the government has no just say in the
matter unless it allows the land owner to leave the union because he
is not willing to allow a custom duty to be charged on his
land.
There is a problem with that Secession is allowed but I do not
see anywhere in the US constitution that allows the US government to
kick a state or even a single property owner with his property out of
the union although an amemdment could allow that and specify cause.
Now some state constitutions may allow a state to kick a property
owner with his land out of the state, I don't know.--- In
[email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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" <cottondrop@>
> 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/
