the diamonds handle all of the logistics. It's irrelevant to the question
how difficult it is for an organization to transport it's good - the only
thing we are discussing is the matter of why people are liable for a 3%
tariff regardless of how much government involvement there is in the
transport across the border or who is affected this side of the border.
However, you didn't answer my question other than to say "It's fair." You
don't explain why it's fair, or give any other logical basis for your
answer. I'm left wondering why the fellow who need only carry a suitcase
through an airport must pay a fee (or face loss of freedom) that is the same
as the guy who must bring in 100,000 automobiles through US ports.
Then again, I'm still left wondering ( you have never answered) why it is
not initiation of force to coerce me, a consumer, into paying 3% more for a
product. Let's say that product is an imported diamond, as they are quite
rarely found in the US. Why must I pay more than I want to pay and the
seller wants to charge? I'm not obtuse, and I know most of the people on
this list are not obtuse either. I read many publications and articles from
many different think tanks, especially those involving economics and
libertarianism. Except for the some of the more liberal views espoused by
the socialist think tanks, I rarely have trouble understanding even the most
complex economic summaries - so why is it that I can't understand your logic
when it comes to explaining why tariffs are not initiation of force. I know
why - you haven't provided any.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 5:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
No. Neither of them would be subsidizing the other. Both would be
required to pay the same amount. This is fair regardless of the
amount of paperwork. Someone bringing in 100 million dollars worth of
goods is the same as anyone else with 100 million dollars worth of
goods whether they're toothpicks, diamonds, or t-shirts.
The weight and dimensions are irrelevant. It's actually logistically
more difficult sometimes to arrange the transfer of a suitcase worth
of diamonds as it is to transfer a ship full of containers.
--- In [email protected], Cory Nott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, let's say I'm importing diamons - a relatively small item but
worth a whole lot of money. Perhaps it's $100 million in diamonds, or
about a good sized suitcase full. Now, someone else is importing
automobiles, of the small compact variety that cost very little and
lots of people want. That person is bringing in 100,000 automobiles
for which he paid $100 million in in the country of origin.
>
> According to your tariff ideas, both parties are responsible for
$3 million in "fees" even though it is a great deal more work to bring
in 100,000 automobiles and protect them as they cross the border yet
you would charge them both the same. In effect, the diamond importer
is subsidizing the vehicle importer, or is at least subsidizing all
the jobs of the people who have to collect such information in the
event someone wants to come through with 100,000 automobiles.
>
> Shouldn't we put the tariff on the weight or even the dimensions
of the goods being imported?
>
>
>
>
> Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody is charging people to sell domestic goods in their own country.
> Selling domestic goods is a right. But if they want to bring
> foreign goods into the country, it is a PRIVILEGE. This isn't an
> initiation of force. There is absolutely NOTHING Marxist, statist,
> or in any way a violation of the NAP in anything I've ever said.
>
> Nothing I've said is the slightest bit protectionist either. The
> people who live here own the markets here. They pay for government to
> ensure that those who trade in it remain honest and forthright in
> their dealings. When someone brings goods from foreign countries into
> this one, they must pay their share for this protection. It's a
> PRIVILEGE to be allowed to bring goods into this country from another.
> Living here doesn't grant change this privilege into a right.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], Cory Nott <corynott@> wrote:
> >
> > The idea that it is a PRIVILEGE to sell goods in one's own country
> is generally regarded as fascism. Not only that but setting a
> percentage rate imposes higher costs on those who can afford to import
> more, even though the protective border services provided to them may
> be the same or even less. Pauls falls right into the old Marxist trap
> - from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
> >
> >
> >
> > boyd.w.smith@ wrote:
> > So then lacking any coherent or objective criteria for determining
> what is and is not a tax, you decide on arbitrary whim?
> >
> > BWS
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul <ptireland@>
> > Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:35 pm
> > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
> >
> > > Wrong. Both governments have been placed in charge of the
borders of
> > > each nation and it doesn't matter if someone owns land within the
> > > nation, just that they are bringing goods from one nation into
> > > another. Each nation is placed in charge of guarding the borders of
> > > that nation and granted the authority to charge tariffs on behalf of
> > > those who live in the country as a PRIVILEGE to sell goods
within that
> > > country.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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.
