Do you mean the real property over which the goods move, or the goods themnselves. In the case of the real estate a title deed would do so and in the case of the goods, a bill of sale and or loading.
BWS ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry L Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:18 pm Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Tariffs > 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" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > > > > > > 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/
