Beyond the need to establish validity of the border bound property's ownership, there is a need to establish the 'standing' and 'legitimacy' of an owner's agent (USA Govt?) in order to impose a 'fee' (tariff)
-Terry Liberty Parker http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <txliberty@> 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/
