Well so far you have lost that intellectual victory because you are not making a lick of sense and you have not proven a thing.--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually the venue has a contract which states I will be the only > promoter for all events at this location. > > I've proven dozens of times that it's not a property rights issue. > I've never disputed your property ownership even once. Your ownership > of foreign goods does not give you the right to transport those goods > into America and sell them inside America, even if you own property > here. Your ownership of property does not entitle you to move it > across the borders owned and controlled by "We the People" or MY > property. Nothing you claim will change that FACT. > > You must pay for the PRIVILEGE of bringing those goods across the > American borders. You have repeatedly failed to prove that you have a > right to bring those goods into America or any other country unwilling > to have you. You have falsely claimed that borders don't matter. You > have falsely claimed that it's a property rights issue when I've never > disputed your property ownership and your property ownership does NOT > grant you the right to transport and sell your foreign goods within > the borders of America. You have repeatedly made the false claim that > only the buyer and seller are involved despite the fact that I've > proven otherwise by showing that the markets also involve the > government which protects both the buyer and seller from fraud, theft, > coercion, etc. and which supplies the markets. > > All you're doing now is repeating the same arguments I've shown down > over and over. I've proven the libertarian position to be that no > force or coercion is being used when tariffs are made, and that your > ownership of goods is completely irrelevant when it comes to bringing > those goods across the borders of soveregn nations (which are > absolutely relevant). > > Your repeated denial that I've proven these things are empty and hold > no merit. If you don't come up with something new to say, I'll just > take my moral and intellectual victory and ignore you. > > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote: > > > > From: Paul <ptireland@> > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The right to property is an absolute right. I can move my property > > > where I own or have secured the right of way. If I own the property, > > > then I own the right of way. If you come on to my property and > > > interfere with the movement of my other property or try to take some > > > of my property then you are guilty of trespass, and theft and > > > attempted theft. > > > > > > You have not "secured the right of way". The "right of way" belongs > > > to the American people. If you own land in America, it does not grant > > > you the "right of way" to bring foreign goods into America and nothing > > > you say will change that indisputable fact. You want to cross MY > > > borders, you must pay a toll. If you claim I (and other Americans) > > > don't own the borders of our own country, you deny national > > > sovereignty and our conversation is over. > > > > > > > > I deny other people sovereignty over my body and my real property > and my movable property and my intellectual property. It is mine and > I claim absolute (and moral) authority over it. And when you deny > that I own the right of way over my property you are trying to make an > absolute right conditional. > > > > > > The markets are created by specific individual buyers and > > > sellers. Your introduction of countries and borders are a red > herring and a > > > diversion form the topic at had, property rights. > > > > > > If you want to say America doesn't own the markets, that's fine, > > > America owns "access" to the markets and you've got to pay a toll to > > > get in. If I am a concert promoter, I don't own the venue, I don't > > > own the band, but I am the one putting on the show, and if you > > > want to see the concert, you've got to pay to get in. > > > > > In this analogy I would along with other be in the band, own the > venue and be the promoter. If you are a promoter and I choose to > self-promote you are uninvolved, and if you try to take money from me > for the concert you are an extortionist. > > > > Now re the markets: how can you own access to something that is > created by me and another person(s). We create the market by OUR > actions. It disappears when our transaction is concluded. You > neither participated or helped or were even there. Why do you have a > right to control access between me and another person? > > > > > > > I believe you said exactly that in a previous post. Could someone > > > find that in the archives to verify that, my access to those is > > > limited by my work Internet access. > > > > > > Feel free to look it up. I never said it. > > > > > > > > > > > For you to have ownership in the American markets without the > > > constitution to state it, you would have to have a logically provable > > > interest or a documented provable ownership interest. You have shown > > > neither in this discussion. > > > > > > > > BWS > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have proven each and every single thing I've ever written in this > > > and every other messageboard I've ever posted on. > > > > Not that you own the market. Not that this is not a property rights > issue. Not that borders are relevant. Not that you have the right to > interfere in a commercial transaction between two other individuals. > All things that you have claimed and failed to prove. > > > > 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/
