Terry if this was going to actually be a jury trial I would say-The
state or plantiff can enter evidence that it thinks can convince a
jury but the burden of proof is on the state or plantiff. Remember
also especially if the state is making not paying the tax a crime,
the state can not appeal if all 12 vote not guilty but the defendent
can appeal if all 12 says he is
guilty.
The defend can also bring counter suits for things that the pro
tax people may have done to him incuding taking his property through
forced taxes but maybe for other wrong doings they may have promoted
so in the balance of it many if not most of the pro tax people may
not wish to force the defendent to pay taxes because that very well
may enourage him to seek little legal revenge and they may end up
owing him far more than the traiffs they want to collect from him. If
he counter sued several pro tax people they may end up oweing him
even 100 times as much, maybe 10,000 times as much as the traiffs
they will collect. The moral of the story don't mess with someone
life, liberty and property unless either they have their own house
in order ( he who is without sin cast the first stone) or they are
willing to pay the price( some are gamblers and may play the odds
against them) because what goes around comes
around.
Of course some of the pro tax people will not have a checkered
past, and may wish to proceed with the tax suit against the importer,
dock owner or other private property owner.--- In
[email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can legitimacy be determined for ownership of the property bounded
> by borders for which tariffs are proposed?
>
> -Terry Liberty Parker
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <cottondrop@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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" <ptireland@> 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/
