--- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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. > > In this case definite property rights with a stated condition of entry and remaining. Property rights include the ability to stipulate its use. > > If I buy lemons in Mexico, put them on my ship, bring them to my dock, move them to my house, and use them to make lemonade, sell the lemonade from a stand in my front yard, there is definite property rights involved and it is all traceable. No one else can interfere. Such interference would be an act of aggression. > > BWS >
This case is absolutely no different than those wishing to bring goods into America with the stated condition of entry and remaining being the condition that you pay a tariff to pay for entry. You may own the lemons and the ship, and your front yard, but you do not own the dock. The dock is within the borders that "We the people" own. If you want to cross the borders owned by "We the people", you must pay a toll. 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/
