that don't matter to the topic at hand. The point is such a tax is
not an initiation of force because it doesn't tax a right, and it is
easily avoidable.
Whether you think it could be charged another way better is irrelevant.
All that matters is it's not force. It's a choice.
--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Paul, it would be the gas supllier forced to charge, evidence needs
> to be shown to the jury why the supllier owes the debt and that the
> debt is the amount the supllied. One could argue that a refinery is a
> corporation which is a service provided by a state government that is
> voluntery, in that case it is strictly a user fee. Corporate revenue
> in the US is around 17 trillion to 19 trillion a year so a tax on
> corporate gross revenue of less than 1.5% would bring in about what
> the federal corporate income tax brings in now around 230 billion
> dollars but some pay nothing except a high compliance and record
> costs and most C corporations probally pay more maybe much more than
> 1.5% in gross revenue especially counting compliance
> costs.
> It would be easier to prove that a corporation must pay the fee
> than to prove a small fuel suppler and retailer must charge a fuel
> tax. First if it is a common road everyone has a right to use it to
> get back and forth to his property, if restrictions or charges are
> applied then ownership of the road must be clear. The pavement on the
> road may in some cases be enough for ownership and to charge
> transport that will wear the pavement but that can not be just
> assumed.--- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@>
> wrote:
> >
> > All taxes are not force. For instance a gas tax. One could choose
> > not to use gas. One could use an entirely electric car and avoid
> the
> > tax all together. Therefore it's not force because someone has
> made a
> > CHOICE to use gas, and therefore agrees to pay the fee (aka tax)
> > associated with it. If they choose not to pay it, they can CHOOSE
> to
> > use an electric car or another conveyance.
> >
> > A right can not be taxed, but a privilege can be. For instance the
> > PRIVILEGE of bringing goods across national borders. This is not a
> > right and has nothing to do with the right of property ownership.
> It
> > is a PRIVILEGE offered by governments for a fee.
> >
> > If you make a choice to bring those goods across national borders,
> > you're CHOOSING to pay the fee associated with them. If you try to
> > bring your goods across without paying, you're committing an act of
> > aggression in the form of trespass and theft.
> >
> > Illigitimate taxes would include a breathing tax, an eating tax, an
> > income tax, or a sleeping tax.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <cottondrop@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > All taxes are intation of force, otherwise the fees are not
> taxes.---
> > > In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You mean like accurately describing a tariff as not using the
> > > > initiation of force? And for those who smuggle goods across
> > > national
> > > > borders of initiating force? And thoroughy proving logically,
> > > > reasonably, intelligently, and from a libertarian perspective
> that
> > > not
> > > > all taxes are theft, and not all taxes amount to the initiation
> of
> > > > force while disproving every inaccurate, false, and misleading
> > > > statement you tried to make to the contrary?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul <ptireland@>
> > > > > > Wrong. Comparing Christianity to Libertarianism is an
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > perfect analogy. Christianity has a set belief system and
> so
> > > does
> > > > > > libertarianism. Christianity has a core belief that
> separates
> > > its
> > > > > > belief system from others. In this case the belief in
> Jesus of
> > > > > > Nazareth. In the case of Libertarianism it's the believe
> in
> > > and
> > > > > > support of the non-aggression principle. If someone does
> not
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > in the nap, the term "libertarianism" is as inappropriate
> for
> > > them
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > is "Christianity" for a Satan worshiping.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All paths do not lead to liberty. Some lead to aggression,
> and
> > > those
> > > > > > that lead to aggression always lead away from liberty.
> > > Aggression in
> > > > > > the name of liberty is like rape in the name of virginity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly like supporting tariffs and saying it isn't a tax
> when it
> > > > really is. And then denying that fact that all taxes are
> initiated
> > > > aggression.
> > > > >
> > > > > BWS
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
