From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You are absolutely, 100% false.  
> 
> First off the American markets are OWNED by the American people as a
> whole and are regulated by the U.S. government legitimately.  America
> is not under any obligation to allow any foreign products into America
> AT ALL.  But when it does allow foreign goods to be sold in American
> markets, it is extending a PRIVILEGE.  You ask who is harmed when
> foreign goods are sold here.  The answer is American manufacturers.
> 

Then your are against capitalism and competition?  OK.  I can accept that.  But 
that is very very anti-liberty.  But I can accept that from you.

> While I'm 100% in favor of free-market capitalism, (a 3% tariff does
> not qualify as protectionism according to every Nobel prize winning
> economist) I am still honest enough to admit that American businesses
> face greater competition when foreign goods are brought here.  As a
> consumer and a Libertarian, I love this.  If I were an American
> manufacturer, I'd be pissed at those working for me in Washington if
> they weren't at least collecting a tariff to lighten my tax 
> burden.  
> 

This too is a very very anti-capitalist argument.  And allows for the 
government to accept bribes to grant favors.  That is part of why we have such 
a mess in our country now.

> Let's say for a minute that you were in land without a government and
> in this land, you and your neighbors decided to make an agreement with
> each other to build a town, and in this town you make your own 
> laws.  Each person in the town is an equal stockholder as it were and each
> gets a vote.  One of the things you all agree on is the Mayor and city
> council will charge a tax on those who wish to sell products from
> other towns so those who make goods locally won't have to deal with
> having the market flooded with goods.
> 
> The people of the town have the legitimate right to make this law, and
> anyone who moves in after the law is created is subject to it.

If it is on private property then it is a libertarian argument.  The minute 
that it interferes with the property rights of an individual, then it is 
anti-liberty and therefore immoral.

> 
> The people of the 13 colonies agreed that government would regulate
> commerce in this way.  If you were born after the Constitution was
> created, and I assume you were, it applies to you and your imports 
> too.  Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, you are
> subject to the laws of America.  The Constitution is legitimate,
> including the international commerce clause.
> 
That does not make it right or moral.  It may be the law of the land, but it is 
an immoral and unjust law.  it is anti-liberty and it is un-libertarian to say 
that this is how it should be.

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/
 


Reply via email to