Your question was, "How, in a Libertarian Society, is it not an initiation of force to mandate a seller to charge, and a buyer to pay, to the goverment, a Tax on the sale of those goods?"
First, there is no initiation of force to mandate a buyer to pay a tax on the sale of goods. They can avoid paying the tax by not purchasing those particular goods. Nobody is forcing them to buy the goods. The seller could also choose to take lower profit margins and not pass the tax onto his customers. The legitimate role of government includes protecting people and businesses from fraud, theft, coercion, etc. in the markets. This protection comes at a price. That price can be a sales tax by the particular state. If you want to know where states get this legitimate power to make such a tax and compell a seller to charge it, let's say you have a group of people without a government who agree to avoid being overrun by gangs, they will protect each other and will use force to defend each other. They decide who will or won't sell goods within their community. As individuals who own the property of the village, they have the legitimate right to make these laws. They also have the right to charge for this privilege through taxes. If a seller wants to sell goods inside their combined property, they may or may not refuse to allow it. They may allow it under the condition that they add a small charge to each transaction to offset the cost of the protection they get from the locals. Merely owning property does not allow you to sell it anywhere you want. It would be a foolish claim. So a seller is also not being FORCED or coerced into collecting a sales tax on the transactions. He willingly agrees to do such as a condition of his being allowed to sell his products on their property. If he refuses, he may refused permission to sell his goods, which is a legitimate right of those banding together to exercise. So, I've proven that in both cases, neither the buyer nor the seller has had force initiated against them. --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul, I would go back and get the number of the post, and place the > quote of you doing just what you are now denying, but I don't have > an obsession with making you admit your mistakes, this has been for > the purpose explained in the other post from Friday, and I also > don't have any great desire to explain that to you either. > > My question is not loaded, it is clear, and stated as intended. Your > question is loaded and mistated, as well as misleading to any one > who has not read previous posts in this thread. > > I have made no point of views, expressed no opinions, and made no > statements of my intentions beliefs or concerns, aside from that one > not pertaioning to economics in any way, nor goverment, but rather > point of view on theory. In this thread, Paul, I have only asked you > to clerify your opinions. > > Thus, your claim that I have made consistant attempts to do > anything, is out right astonishing. > > One does not have a right to initiate force in a Libertarian > soceity, it is my beleif that that is the foundation of > the 'Libertarian Society', and because of this beleif that I have > consistatnly held threw out this thread I ask you > > How, in a Libertarian Society, is it not an initiation of force to > mandate a seller to charge, and a buyer to pay, to the goverment, a > Tax on the sale of those goods? > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > I'd answer your loaded question, but it is misworded. 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. 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. > > > > 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? > > > > Your consistent attempts to justify your desire to initiate force > > against other Americans is wholly unlibertarian. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Forget his metaphors Boyd and join with me in asking > > > > > > "How, in a Libertarian Society, is it not an initiation of force > to > > > mandate a seller to charge, and a buyer to pay, to the > goverment, a > > > Tax on the sale of those goods?" > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Paul <ptireland@> > > > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The situation is not in any way like a corporate mall. > You > > > have no > > > > > choice where you are born. You have rights and the right to > > > property > > > > > is one of them. Your attempts to say that you have a moral > > > right to > > > > > interfere in my property rights are false. Your analogy is > > > > > misleading. Your claims that you can interfere with my > rights > > > because > > > > > the constitution says you can only point up the fact that the > > > > > constitution is wrong on this point as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > BWS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The situation is exactly like a corporate mall. And if you > want > > > to > > > > > make it a property rights issue, the property in question is > the > > > mall > > > > > and it's owned by me and the other Americans. You have no > right > > > to > > > > > bring foreign goods into the corporate mall without payinf > > > rent. You > > > > > have no right to setup a lemonade stand in my front yard to > sell > > > YOUR > > > > > lemonade. It's not just a matter of you selling YOUR > property > > > and > > > > > someone buying it. You are NOT the only two parties > involved. > > > You > > > > > are involving me by selling your stuff on my property. > > > > > > > > > > I, and all the other Americans, do in fact OWN the mall > > > (markets). > > > > > > > > I am actually setting up the lemonade stand on MY property. > You > > > are NOT involved unless you wish to buy my lemonade. It is > EXACTLY > > > a matter of selling my lemonade on my property. Morally you do > not > > > own the markets. Despite the constitution. But I do offer you > the > > > opportunity to prove your point. Again. Something you have not > yet > > > done. > > > > Continually repeating you stance is not proof. You can say > > > incorrect things millions of times and that does not make them > > > correct. You can say unproven assertions billions of times and > that > > > will not constitute proof. > > > > > > > > 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/
