Your story of a hypothetical town is interesting, but its irrelevant to whether or not our founding fathers agreed to anything. In your town, you say that the founders retain ownership in the property of the town. They get to decide the rules of their property and as such can require that anyone who wishes to conduct business on it must pay tariffs on non-locally produced goods. I presume that any founder that sells the property will pass on those rules through some sort of restrictive covenant, requiring that all future owners, before purchasing the property, sign a contract stipulating that they will abide by those rules. Were I or you to buy such a property, wed be bound by those rules and if we break the rules then there is a legitimate case to take you or I to court or possibly pursue criminal charges if fraud was involved. If the previous owner did not require that I sign the contract upon purchase of the property, then that would be fraud on the part of the previous owner (who violated the contract he signed) and my ownership of that property would be dubious I probably would have to give it up to the previous owner and sue for my money back. The founding fathers could not make contracts for me. The Constitution is great, but its not perfect, and its not perfectly Libertarian. A while ago you argued that anyone who supports the initiation of force is not a Libertarian. What you failed to mention, but you make clear here is that you BELIEVE that anyone who does not support the US Constitution is not a Libertarian. <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.> And whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with it or not, the Constitution does allow for the initiation of force and is therefore not entirely libertarian. Most of us, however, would take adherence to the Constitution over what we have today. We may be subject to the laws, but that does not make the laws just and that includes the Constitution. As for your theory about Nobel prize winning economists being in support of tariffs, I dont find that particularly valuable. It just means that economists that win that prize tend to favor some aggression by the state. Tariffs may protect some industries from harm, but they do harm others. They are an initiation of force and there is no way you can get around that fact. Someone will be harmed whereas if there is no tariff, none will be harmed. You can say that American manufacturers will be harmed by competition from foreign manufacturers, but you cant prove it other than on an emotional basis (you feel sorry for them). No person is unjustly deprived of life, liberty or property because of foreign competition. If you think that someone is, please give
Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 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/
