From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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.  

The Mafia calls this protection and extortion.

> 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.
> 
No such a claim would be a Libertarian 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.

A conditional right to property?  

> If he refuses, he may refused permission to sell his goods, which is
> a legitimate right of those banding together to exercise.   

So then things are right to do if enough people say it is.  What if a large 
enough group of people similarly say that 2+2=5.

> So, I've proven that in both cases, neither the buyer nor the seller
> has had force initiated against them.

No, you have used a series of logical fallacies to say what you want to say.

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/
 



Reply via email to