ok people how many of you think Paul has proven his case? If you think Traiffs are just are some importers justly exempt? What is the just amount owed and why is that amount just?--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Once again, you make false and baseless claims and then suggest they > are truthful and I'm lying. The indisputable fact is tariffs are not > theft or coercion or an initiation of force, and you can't admit it > because your whole warped world view would come crashing down. I've > proven a dozens and dozens and dozens of times that tariffs are not > theft and are not an initiation of force, yet you continue to say "Nuh > uh!!!" and ignore the truth. It's really becoming comical to see such > childishness in your argument. > > Now you'll falsely claim I didn't prove that tariffs aren't theft, > and you'll say that I'm the one ignoring the truth. You'll say that > what I'm saying violates libertarianism when in fact it is YOU who is > promoting the initiation of force in the form of theft and trespass. > > Then I'll correct you again, and it will start over. Beginning to see > a pattern yet? > > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote: > > > > That is true despite the overwhelming proof, and it being > continuously shown you have been true to yourself and never admitted > this truth . > > > > America is owned by Americans, corporations, partnerships, Japanese, > Mexicans, and many other people of variant nationalities. And yes > everything within the imaginary lines is claimed by the government of > America. And they engage in theft and lies and murder on a ,massive > scale. And you keep saying that it is the people in government who > are responsible. But the people we get are part of the system that is > given. If we only go down to the stated constitutional limits we will > very soon be back where we are now. > > > > Your mall example/analogy is stupid and does not apply. A mall is a > voluntary association, a country is an involuntary association. > Management is hired, governments are elected. The system is broken. > Simply because it was in place before I was born does not make it > right. I as an individual was never given my chance to agree or > disagree. America is not in any way a mall. The analogy sucks. If > it were valid, I would be able to open up another mall and attract > customers. > > > > Our country is what it is. A geographic area within a common set of > borders. > > > > The way things are are the way things are, but that does not mean > that they are morally correct. And that is my point. Tarrifs are > theft (proven over and over again) and theft is wrong. The current > situation in Iraq is wrong. The drug war is wrong. Initiation of > force against innocent people is wrong. This is libertarian philosohy. > > > > You can't say that just because you want to have something it is > therefore morally correct. > > > > BWS > > From: Paul <ptireland@> > > > 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. > > >
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/
