Don't get drawn into Paul's irrelevant metaphor game Cory, its a 
tactic he uses to remove all sense and conection to realty, when he 
is in trouble in a discussion. Drop the lemons and talk about your 
rights to property, and he will not be able to answer untill he 
admits his previous mistakes.

--- In [email protected], Cory Nott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If I set up a lemonade stand on my property and sell lemonade for 
$1 per cup, a good price considering the cost of lemons in the 
store, and my neighbor buys his lemons from Mexico and charges $.75 
per cup, what right do I have to ensure that he pays tariffs on 
those lemons? How am I being harmed by his imports other than that 
buyers are no longer willing to pay $1 per cup for lemonade. I 
haven't been deprived of anything by force - I merely have to find 
another way to compete. However, charging a tariff on Mexican lemons 
deprives the owner of those lemons of some of his property - that 
is, his money.
>    
>    
>    
>   
> Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   You have the right to buy anything that is legally for sale.  You
> don't have the right to buy things that are illegally being sold 
such
> as stolen or smuggled property.  The government offers a privilege 
for
> people to sell foreign goods in America if they pay a tariff.  
This is
> completely unrelated with what you're allowed to buy.
> 
> If someone sets up a lemonade stand in my front yard without my
> permission, and I kick them out, you're trying to tell me I'm
> violating your right to buy lemonade from my property which I'm 
not.  
> 
> If your idea of liberty includes trespassing against others with
> impunity, I don't know what to say to you.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
> wrote:
> >
> > How about BUYING goods Paul. Do you claim the goverment has 
> > authority to tell Americans what they have a right ot buy and 
what 
> > they have a privlage to buy, as if the people got their 
authority 
> > from the goverment, and not the goverment from the people Paul?
> > 
> > The goverment, in your opinion, gives us the privilage of 
deciding 
> > what we buy? Is this realy liberty Paul? Is this not agression, 
> > coersion of the American people to buy what the goverment 
aproves 
> > of, giving it power to coerce other peoples threw trade 
agreements? 
> > Is this your vission of Liberty Paul? That only a chosen few can 
> > tell me what I can or can not buy?
> > 
> > If thats your idea of Liberty Paul, I don't know what more to 
say to 
> > you.
> > 
> > --- 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 
> 
> 
> 
>   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/
 



Reply via email to