I'm not going to respond to you if you intersperse your weak retorts among my posts. Make your own post in response to mine without making it hard to read or it's not worth reading.
I've been giving you logical arguments and nothing was because "I say so". I'm guessing you don't own each and every single square inch of the United States. That being the case, it's owned by a group known as "We the people of the United States" and they appointed the U.S. government to oversee all imports and exports into and out of the country. A similar arrangment has been made with pretty much every single nation on earth and thier respective governments. Since the borders of the United States are owned by "We the People" and protected by their agent, the U.S. government, "We the People" have granted authority to the government to charge a tariff on goods imported here to be sold in any location within our borders. Neither you, nor anyone else on the planet earth (or any other planet for that matter) is born with the right to bring foreign goods past the borders owned by "We the People" without paying the price of admission. If you buy goods in another country, you own those goods. Your ownership is absolute but your ownership does NOT come with the right to bring those goods past national borders. If you doubt me, feel free to try it and see what happens. Most likely, the U.S. Government (the agent of "We the People") will use DEFENSIVE force to stop your trespass and aggression of bringing foreign goods into American markets. You say that in the ebay situation, sometimes the seller pays and sometime the buyer pays, but then you say that the only 2 parties involved are the buyer and seller. That's not the truth though. There is another party involved, the shipper. The shipper handles crossing the border, and makes sure the governments are satisfied. If you've bought something from the UK, the shipper makes sure that "We the People" are paid for the PRIVILEGE of bringing those goods into America. I've proven with evidence, logic, reason, and even broken it down into analogies for you to better understand, but you disagree because you know I'm right and you don't like the answer. Nothing I've said is the least bit authoritarian. You have suggested it is, and you've claimed to have rights you don't, but you have nothing to back up these assertions. Tell me how hiring a security guard to stop people from selling lemonade in your yard is infringing on your rights? It doesn't matter if you own the lemons, you own the table, you own the sugar, and the pitcher. You do NOT own the yard, and your claims of such hold no water. "We the People" own the yard, and have hired "US Government" to provide the security. There is not even a tiny bit of aggression with tariffs, and you have yet to prove any. You CHOOSE to buy goods in another country. You CHOOSE to bring them into America knowing there is a tariff to do it. Then you want to try to suggest aggression against you which is laughable. There is no aggression to prevent you from exercising your rights, and you don't have a right to bring your goods over national borders. No matter how many times you repeat it, it will continue to be untrue. Repeating it will never make it true. Borders are NOT imaginary lines. They are real and they are tangible and they are a good thing. Borders compartmentalize governments and keep them limited in scope and size and keep tyrrany localized when it occurs. MOVING YOUR GOODS ACROSS NATIONAL BORDERS IS NOT YOUR RIGHT AND NOTHING YOU SAY WILL MAKE IT YOUR RIGHT. If you buy lemon trees from another country, they may not be allowed into this one because they might have some sort of disease that could endanger our orchards, but assuming they are safe and you are allowed to bring them in, you'd pay a tariff on the tree itself. Then all the lemons you grow are yours to do with as you please. My logic has not failed, but yours has in this conversation. --- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Wrong. In otherwords the property you pay for, have the reciept and > > deed for is yours alone and I have no claim to it, but if you want to > > bring that property across my nations borders, you must pay for the > > PRIVILEGE to do so. Your property rights DO NOT entitle you to bring > > your goods across national borders. > > Then prove it. Offer a logical argument. Just because you "say it is so" is not proof or a logical argument. > > > No matter who you bought it from, who you negotiated the price with, > > whom you purchased it from, etc. you DO NOT have the right to > > transport those goods across national borders. You may have this > > PRIVILEGE if you choose to pay for it. And this has nothing to do > > whatsoever with your ownership of those goods and does not > > infringe on your ownership rights in even the slightest way. > > Since you have never offered any thing aside from "because I say it is so", I am free to reject this irrational diatribe. > > > If you buy something online, you often have to pay for shipping costs. > > Does this mean they're infringing on your ownership of the item? Not > > at all. Shipping costs are unrelated to the cost of the item itself > > and do not effect your ownership of the goods. > > No, not always. Some times the seller pays, or it is shared. But that is between myself and the seller. The government is not properly involved. The same as when I move my goods across my property and across those imaginary lines. > > > I have never said the Constitution gives me the right to infringe on > > your property or your rights and I've never suggested that anyone > > should infringe on your property or rights. I've only stated the FACT > > that tariffs do not infringe upon your property or your rights, > > and in fact have nothing to do with your ownership or rights. > > That it is a libertarian stance to do this is not a fact. The fact is your position is that of an authoritarian. And is in no way libertarian. If it is I invite you to try and prove it. With evidence, logic or proof. > > > You have claimed a right you do not have. You have suggested that by > > buying property, you are magically given carte blanche to take your > > goods into any country on the globe to do with them as you please > > regardless of whether the people of that country want you there or > > not. This is obviously not the case. > > I am saying that it is an act of aggression to interfere with that right. I have proven over and over again that it is an act of aggression and you have stated your support for tariffs. You there for support aggression and theft. Either you do not support aggression or you do support tariffs. Which is it? Moving my goods across my property (imaginary lines for borders don't count) is my right. If I own property across one of these lines, I have the right to move that property as I please. > > Here are some examples where you philosophy falls short and actual libertarianism does not. > > If I buy goods and move them into my country with the intent of personal use and subsequent to that I receive an offer that is just to good to pass up, what then? > > If I buy lemon trees in a foreign country and plant them and then start selling lemon aid, is the lemon aid subject to tariff? The lemons? The trees? > > 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/
