I can voluntarly avoid eating 2 turnips from my garden instead of 1 but I perfer to have 2 and noone has a right to tell me I can't eat two on my own property, or selling the turnips on my property to someone else, either way it is coresive to charge me a tax, it is clearly intation of force and I have a right to defend myself if someone trys to collect by use of force, unless they can show all 12 members of a jury why I owe the tax but I have a right to an appeal if the jury decesion goes against me. Paul it is called due process, Someone can't just claim I owe a tax unless you can prove before a jury of 12 of my peers why I owe the debt and how much I owe. If anyone try to enforce me to pay without proving their case before a jury I have a right to defend myself.--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All advocates of libertarianism accept the non-aggression principle as the defining characteristic that determines whether or not a perspective is libertarian. This is what the LP pledge means. Those that don't, aren't being consistent with libertarianism. > > I happen to agree with Harry Browne's words that tariffs are not > perfect, but they are better than everything else, but I disagree that > tariffs are even the slightest bit coercive or anything even remotely > connected to an initiation of force. > > Anything that can be voluntarily avoided is not an initiation of > force. For instance if someone sees a short toll road owned by a > private corporation or a longer path that is free, and they choose to > take the toll road, they have no valid complaints when it comes to > paying it. They weren't forced to choose that road. They could have > avoided it by taking the other road, but they CHOSE the short path. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" > <thomaslknapp@> wrote: > > > > Quoth Paul Ireland: > > > > > Libertarians (like Harry Browne) support a non-protectionist flat 3% > > > tariff on all imported goods which would not hamper anyone's ability > > > to compete in the market and would be fair. > > > > Some Libertarians (including the late Harry Browne) support(ed) a > > tariff. Some don't. > > > > Either way, saying that Libertarians support a tariff is very > > different from saying taht Libertarians regard a tariff as being > > consistent with the non-aggression principle. Not all Libertarians > > accept the non-aggression principle as a criterion of what constitutes > > libertarianism. Some who do accept it posit a necessary transitional > > period from here to "libertopia." So far as I know, you're the only > > person who tries to put over the absurd proposition that tariffs are > > "non-coercive." > > > > Browne certainly didn't regard tariffs as non-coercive -- as a matter > > of fact, he made it clear that he regarded them as just a "lesser > > evil" to be accepted during a transition: > > > > "Tariffs (or 'duties') are taxes on imports. A tariff isn't a 'good' > > tax; it's just a tax. But the government can collect it without > > sending IRS agents to snoop through your records. Until we find a way > > to finance government without taxes or a way to assure our safety > > without any government, some form of taxation will be necessary. And > > my choice is to use tariffs and excise taxes -- as the Founding > > Fathers did." > > > > -- "Freedom to work, to earn and to buy," from _The Great Libertarian > > Offer_, by Harry Browne, http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/FreeTrade.htm > > > > Tom Knapp > > >
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/
