It is a property rights issue. So far you have continued to maintain that the transport of foreign goods is some sort of aggression against others. However, you cannot or will not explain how Americans are being deprived of life, liberty or property when another brings in property from a foreign country and sells it here.
Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 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/
