I'll phrase it very clearly so there is no mistake. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IMPORT GOODS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING IT COMMERCIALLY HERE AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!
Is that clear enough for you? Let me break it down even further. If you're on vacation and buy something, and you come home with it, you are free to sell it. If you buy 10 thousand units of something specifically to sell them in America, you are not free to sell them unless you pay for that privilege. Let's say you're on a vacation in Japan and you buy a camera. You use the camera while on vacation, but when you come home you realize it won't work with out power. You are free to sell it on eBay to others who might want it. This is entirely different than going to Japan and buying a thousand cameras to ship them here so you can sell them to stores....or even on eBay. You do have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit as long as you haven't purchased that property in a foreign country specifically to sell here. BRINGING GOODS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY INTO AMERICA FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING THEM IS NOT A RIGHT..... IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF A RIGHT. IT IS A PRIVILEGE. Using force to prevent people from bringing foreign goods into America is the same as using force to prevent people from stealing or trespass. You can call trespass a PEACEFUL activity all you like, but that doesn't make it any less of a crime. --- In [email protected], Cory Nott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To reshape your argument so that I understand it better, you are saying that the property that I OWN, that may have come from offshore or another country or wherever, I cannot SELL without someone granting me the PRIVILEGE to do so. Therefore, I do not have the RIGHT to dispose of my property in the manner I see fit. I can be prevented, by legal FORCE, from a PEACEFUL activity. Is that correct? > > > > > > > > Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you buy property somewhere else you have the right to bring it here > for your own use, but not to sell it here. If you want to bring goods > from foreign countries into America, that is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. > > I can't speak for other countries. Perhaps, like America, you could > sell the goods you bought in the country in which you bought them > without a tariff, but the standard procedure for our country and every > other country is that when you bring foreign goods into a local > market, you pay for the PRIVILEGE. > > > > --- In [email protected], Cory Nott <corynott@> wrote: > > > > You mean something I bought and paid for overseas is not my property > and I don't have any right to sell it here or elsewhere? > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > English language Political parties Online dictionary > American politics > > > > --------------------------------- > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > > > Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > English language Political parties Online dictionary American politics > > --------------------------------- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > 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/
