I will not allow you to change the topic to a property rights issue when it is not one. It is a trespass issue, and you want to trespass onto other Americans. YOU want to initiate force against them. YOU promote aggression against other Americans. Until you address this, I will not even consider your personal property claims.
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <ptireland@> 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/
