Explain your responses with out irelevant metaphors, I refuse to be cought up in your ruse.
I bought my goods, I want to keep my goods in my garage, and sell my goods to my friends. In a Libertarian society, how does the goverment derive authority to charge me for buying, transporting and selling my own property, and further more, how is a forcing a sales tax (as the original issue was not even tarrifs, but it still relates to your promotion of limited agression) upon citizens, not a use of force if essential items are not exempt, and thus the tax is not voluntary but manditory as items must be procured and can not be procured with out paying the tax. I will not be differed from the topic untill you answer it directly. I am in my garage with my bumper stickers Paul, why is that a privalege and not a right, and why do you have the authority to give or take that privalege when it is my garage and my bumper sticker. --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wrong. I addressed you directly, and didn't allow you to get away > with trying to claim aggression was being used against you when in > fact you desire to use aggression trespass onto others in the form of > trespass. If you want to park your car in my garage, the cost is $5 > per night. If you want to sell your goods in my country (whether it's > your country also or not) you must pay for the PRIVILEGE. You aren't > being coerced and no force is being used against you. If you CHOOSE > to bring goods into America, you are CHOOSING to pay the tariff on them. > > If you buy products in another country and want to sell them in > America, you haven't finished paying for them if you haven't paid the > tariff that is attached to those goods. > > If you want to trespass by bringing foreign goods into America without > paying the legitimate tariff on them. > > In a libertarian society, you wouldn't be allowed to trespass against > me, and other Americans by bringing your foreign goods into this country. > > We have goods in country A, and a market in country B. If person C > wants to buy goods in country A and import them into country B to sell > in country B's markets, he must pay a tariff. > > It doesn't matter if person C is from country A or country B, or any > other country for that matter. It also doesn't matter what country > the person selling the goods is from. All that matters is that the > government of Country B has been given the legitimate authority to > ensure that any goods imported into country B have a tariff on them. > > Note: Person C isn't being taxed. The goods he's trying to import > have a tax attached to them. He can refuse to pay the tax and not > bring his goods here. He can choose not to buy them in the first > place. Nobody is forcing him to buy those goods or to bring them > here. He CHOSE to do that and by doing so he is obliged to pay the > tax attached to the goods if he wants to sell them in America. > > That is libertarianism. Any alternative is not. > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > wrote: > > > > You didn't even adress what I was talking about Paul, are you trying > > to use BushCheney speak tactics, becasue just becasue they use them > > doesn't mean it will work for you, it doesn't even mean it works for > > them when they do it. > > > > If I personaly buy products in one country, and I am an American, in > > America, and want to move my own legaly purchased, and rightfully > > owned possesions, from said country to my home property, and then > > resell them at my own discression, you feel the goverment has some > > right to charge me a fee for the privalage of transporting and > > selling my own property. > > > > Explain how, in a Libertarian society, that is just and right. > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> 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 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/
