Why a nation? Why not a city or a state, or even a neighborhood? Why can't I
charge the cars coming down my street a tariff for bringing goods into the
neighborhood that they could buy at the local market?
Sure, it may sound silly, but it's no different from what Paul is arguing.
People bringing goods from a market not in our neighborhood are hurting
(according to Paul's argument) the people who work at the local market. The
only difference is that the US Constitution makes no provision for setting
tariffs in such a narrow fashion, so for some reason - according to Paul - that
means such a tariff is not libertarian, but it is if the goods are brought from
outside the country.
mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a fascinating thread. I'm torn.
I occasionally attend auction-barn auctions. There are rules for
the audience of potential bidders. One is that no one but the
auctioneer is allowed to sell items on the premises. That means
that a customer can not bring items to sell on the property but
outside of the auction format (without authorization). That
includes casually reselling items he just purchased from the
auctioneer. That's because the auctioneer is there to make a
commission from every sale and has spent money to gather the
crowd of potential buyers. This crowd has value. Of course each
member has self-ownership, but is also a kind of property of the
auction organizers. Theoretically any off-auction selling is
detracting from potential profit intended for the auctioneer.
Besides, the unauthorized seller can always bring in the item(s)
for next week's auction and pay the fee/commission and
potentially make even more profit. The auction barn and the
audience is a resource that cost the auctioneer and unauthorized
use is understandably a violation. Whether the violation is
technically theft or trespass, I can't say. If you offer a
valuable venue for the distribution of goods for a rental fee,
anyone who uses it without paying the rent is guilty of some kind
of aggression. The kind of aggression is less central. More
central is whether a nation, since it is technically not a
private enterprise, can be seen as a similar kind of provider of
such a venue and can charge a fee/commission for use. The cost of
the venue provider would be infrastructure and defending it
against invasion, etc. Maybe I'm talking more about sales tax
than tariffs, but maybe the principle is the same. I truly don't
know. I see both sides. Keep talking.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd answer your loaded question, but it is misworded.
No. It is perfectly worded.
> I don't support the initiation of force to mandate a buyer or
seller to pay the
> government a tax on the sale of those goods.
Then how do you propose to take what does not belong to you in
the first place.
> I support using government to prevent the initiation of force
by those who would
> trespass against the American people by bringing foreign goods
into
> this country without paying a fee for the privilege; a fee that
> rightfully belongs to all of the American people.
There is no trespass. You have failed to prove in any way that
there is.
>
> Now, answer my question.
>
> How, in a Libertarian society, do you have the right to
initiate force
> against other Americans in the form of trespass and theft by
bringing
> goods into American markets in violation of the laws agreed
upon in
> our charter? What gives you the right to trespass or steal
from
> others?
>
A market is created by a buyer and seller - ONLY. If you are
neither you are uninvolved and consequently you are NOT entitled
to anything from it. Where you have no interest, you have no
ownership. Where you have no ownership, there is no trespass
against you.
You keep claiming some sort of ownership of MY market. I and my
buyers have created this market. You were uninvolved. This
market is a private transaction between my buyers and myself. We
created this market out of nothing and when our transactions are
finished it will go back to nothing. What is your basis for
claiming ownership in what I and my buyers have created without
you being involved.
> Your consistent attempts to justify your desire to initiate
force
> against other Americans is wholly unlibertarian.
How is engaging in peaceful commercial transactions in which you
have no stake in or involvement in an initiation of force against
you?
BWS
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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/
