Wrong. The Constitution is not immoral or unlibertarian. In fact, in my opinion it's the single greatest thing ever written by mankind. The Constitution is a contract, and if you choose to live within the borders of America, you are subject to the contract. You can claim that I don't own the market all you like, but you are wrong. Even if I am not selling anything in the market, I own the market every bit as much as a person selling goods in it.
Think of the market as a mall owned by a corporation. Everyone in America is a stockholder in the corporation and the mall is an asset of the corporation. Those who want to sell thier goods in the mall must pay rent to the corporation. The stockholders of the corporation have said that those who sell goods made by the corporation don't have to pay rent in the mall, but those selling goods made by another corporation must pay rent. It doesn't matter if you're a stockholder of the corporation that owns the mall, or a stockholder from another corporation. You must pay rent if you intend to sell goods made by a corporation other than the one who owns the mall. It doesn't matter who bought the goods, or who wants to buy them. All that matters is where the goods were made and where they are going to be sold. Your ownership of property you bought from another corporation is irrelevant. If you want to sell your foreign goods in this mall, you must pay rent. If you refuse to pay rent, you are trespassing and stealing from the stockholders of the corporation. --- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Yes, I have proof of ownership. It's the U.S. Constitution. It makes > > all of the people in America equal shareholders in the markets, and > > grants legitimate power to the government to regulate those markets. > > > We all know what the constitution does. It is wrong/immoral/un-libertarian and that is the point. That is the whole point of this discussion - whether or not it is moral/ethical/right to do what you suggest and use force to interfere with another's property rights. > > > Whether or not you own the goods is irrelevant. I own my car. Does > > that mean I have the right to park it in your driveway to try to > > sell it? > > Straw-man argument. My drive way is my driveway. It is mine by moral right. The market belongs to those who participate in it, indeed it is defined as their participation. It is immoral and un-libertarian to suggest that you own a piece of what someone else does with their own property/bodies/lives. I own my life and my body. I own the products there of. This is a moral position. For you to place condition on the ownership of my property is the same as you placing conditions on the ownership of my life and the vessel that houses it -my body. > > 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/
