The goods are foreign. Whether the seller is American or a foreigner is irrelevant. The goods have a tariff attached to them, not the buyer or the seller.
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would say she is "100%" correct, if it were not for my belief that > there are no absolutes. > > The market is not owned, it is an abstract concept to collectivley > refer to the many buyers and sellers in a particular region or other > for of colelctivity. The market is owned piece by piece, by the > buyers and sellers with in it. The goverments rightfull duty to > manage trade extends to foriegn trade, and securing trade. > > An American who is importing property is not a foriegner, and the > goverment should not have auhtority more so than to ensure legality > of there actions. > > Privlages come from a giver of that privlage Paul, who has the right > to give or take away my right to decide what to do with my own > property. Please explain the reasoning, in the simplest terms of me > as the individual, not colelctive thought as you are trying to hid > behind in using the market as if it were something more than an > abstract term for identification. > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Cory Nott <corynott@> wrote: > > > > > > You're wrong. A market, in the context of which we speak, is not > a > > physical entity that can be owned - it is simply a construct > whereby > > there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. Unless there is a > 3rd > > party being harmed by the transaction (for instance slavery or > stolen > > property), then there is no way the government can interfere > without > > initiating force. You argument is 100% authoritarian, not > libertarian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul <ptireland@> wrote: > > > There is no group rights, but there is public property. The > markets of > > > America belong to the American public. This is not > collectivism, it's > > > just a matter of having borders, sovereignty, and public > property. > > > > > > Whether you admit it or not, every single thing I've said is > both 100% > > > true, and 100% libertarian. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The flaw in this argument is the collectivist one. For there > to be > > > a violation of rights, each and every individual who rights are > > > violated must have had their individual rights violated. There > are no > > > group rights. There are only individual rights and only > individual > > > violations of them. > > > > > > > > BWS > > > > > > > > From: Paul <ptireland@> > > > > > First I wasn't shouting. I typed in caps for emphasis, so > you would > > > > > pay attention. The last time I checked, we were typing, and > not > > > > > speaking. > > > > > > > > > > Buying 1 camera for yourself is not the same as buying 10,000 > > cameras > > > > > for the purpose of selling in Americans markets and nothing > you > > > > > say or > > > > > do will make it the same. > > > > > > > > > > Your claims that I'm supporting the initiation of force are > utterly > > > > > false. I support using force against those who violate the > rights, > > > > > person, or property of non-consenting others. > > > > > > > > > > Whether you like it or not, we have borders, and we have a > > government > > > > > and our government is a legitimate one. The valid scope and > role of > > > > > the government includes defending our person, property, and > rights > > > > > from infringement by others. > > > > > > > > > > The flaw in your logic is that you keep referring to > bringing goods > > > > > from another country into America as a "peaceful activity" > when > > it is > > > > > no more a "peaceful activity" than is trespass. If I choose > to camp > > > > > out in your front yard without your permission and I refuse > to > > go, is > > > > > that a "peaceful" activity? I'd say it isn't. It violates > the > > > > > property rights of the owner. In the case of America, the > American > > > > > people are the owners, and the government has been entrusted > in > > > > > securing our borders and keeping out those who would > trespass by > > > > > selling goods within our borders. > > > > > > > > > > You asked where we "draw the line" when it comes > to "peaceful" > > > > > activities. The lines are already drawn and they are on > pretty much > > > > > any map you can get your hands on. The borders of America > are where > > > > > we draw the line. > > > > > > > > > > If you want to bring foreign goods into America for sale in > American > > > > > markets, you may request permission for this PRIVILEGE. > Bringing > > > > > goods into America for sale is no more your right than is > bringing > > > > > American goods into a foreign for sale in their > markets....which you > > > > > don't unless they allow you the privilege. > > > > > > > > > > If you want to brew alcohol in your garage, and you can do so > > without > > > > > endangering your neighbors, you're free to do that. If you > want to > > > > > sell that alcohol inside any American state, you can do > that. I > > > > > consider any laws regarding the percentage of alcohol in > each > > > > > state to > > > > > be illigitimate. If you want to export your alcohol out of > the > > > > > country, I don't think the American government has any > > legitimate say > > > > > about what you're exporting or how much you export BUT the > country > > > > > where the goods are going DOES have a legitimate say. They > can > > > > > require a tariff on your part, and if you refuse to pay the > > tariff and > > > > > smuggle your goods into the country, you are trespassing > against all > > > > > the people of that country. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > > Libertarian 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/
