The reason for borders is for control, power. The drawer of lines on a map is the enslaver of people on the land.
The opposite of a right is a wrong, the opposite of a right Paul is a breaking of that social contract or non-agression pact that so many here like to tote about. So, if this is the opposite of a right Paul, explain how the buying and selling of goods in good faith with clean buisness practice is a violation of non agression, and for that matter, how prohibiting it is not. --- 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/
