Actually I've never said a small bit of theft is ok, nor have I said that tariffs are theft, or any initiation of force because they are not. Also, I have explained how the people of America are harmed.
Read this part slowly so you will understand. America is owned by Americans. Everything within the borders of the United States is a part of America. For the purpose of clarity, I'll use the same perfect example I used before. Let's say America is a mall. The stockholders (citizens) of the American Mall have hired a management company (U.S. Government) to provide security for the mall, and to run the day to day operations of the mall such as paying the utility bills, fixing leaks in the roof, etc. Now let's say the stockholders have directed that those stores selling goods which were made in the craft shops of the mall don't have to pay rent (tariffs), but those who sell goods manufactured outside the mall must pay rent and they have directed the management company to implement this directive (Constitution). The mall has been run like this since before you were born, but when you were born, you became a stockholder of the mall. Now you want to open a store in the mall with goods made from outside the mall. It doesn't matter if you are a stockholder of the mall. The rules have been established for a long time. Even if you paid for the products with your own money, it does NOT give you the right to open a shop in the mall to sell those goods without paying rent to the management company as anyone else is required to do in the same situation. If you sneak goods through the backdoor and start selling them in the mall, you're infringing on the people who genuinely do have a right to be in the mall either because they paid rent to sell goods in the mall or because they're selling goods made within the mall. You are increasing the amount of competition in the mall and not contributing to the costs of the mall which you genuinely owe to it. If the management company sends their security guards to kick you out of the mall, your rights have not been infringed. You had no right to sell your goods in the mall in the first place. If they use force against you, it's not an initiation of force, it's a use of DEFENSIVE force after you have committed crimes against the stockholders of the mall .... namely trespass and theft. Your being a stockholder of the corporation does not entitle you to sell outside goods in the mall without paying rent. Your ownership of the property you want to sell does not grant you the right to sell goods in the mall without paying rent. If the mall charges rent, it is not infringing on your property rights, and not taking a portion of your property. If you buy outside goods knowing the mall charges rent to sell them, you have no valid complaint when you get the bill for the rent. The rent has nothing to do with your ownership rights and is not an initiation of force. If someone says they "own" the mall, they are lying, they are just one stockholder of 350 million and the stockholders before them voted and setup the rules long ago. Just because the rules were made before one particular stockholder was born and he was given stock does not mean that stockholder is immune from the directives given to the mall by the stockholders before him. This is logical, libertarian, and irrefutable. --- In [email protected], "Cory Nott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I understand it, Paul's argument is that people who bring foreign turnips > into the country are harming you, as a domestic turnip grower, and therefore > tariffs are not an initiation of force. One has to assume, from his > argument, that force has been somehow initiated > already against domestic turnip growers *and* buyers in the domestic market, > but I can't for the life of me figure out how that is, nor has Paul ever > been able to logically and effectively explain it. > > He does admit that tariffs aren't perfect, so maybe he figures that a small > bit of theft is ok since we've got to support a government somehow, and the > 3% tariff is the least harmless method of doing so. Unfortunately, theft is > immoral and it doesn't matter if it's just the tiniest it of theft, it's > not, as Leonard Read put it, a compromise of principles, it's a complete > abandonment of principle. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of terry12622000 > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 9:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Immigration > > > 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" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > 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/
