initiation of force, but that is a lie.
I have said many times. It's not force if you CHOOSE it. The state
absolutely has the legitimate authority to charge for the PRIVILEGE of
bringing goods across national borders.
If the state charges a tariff for the PRIVILEGE of bringing goods
across the borders, especially a fair and flat very low percentage
tariff that can't be considered "protectionist" by any sane person,
those wishing to bring goods know about the tariff before they CHOOSE
to import the goods. If they CHOOSE to do so anyway, they are
CHOOSING to pay the tariff. If they try to bring goods across without
paying the tariff, they are committing an act of aggression...namely
trespass and theft.
Charging based on the value of the goods is fair because it's a
measurement of the economic impact they will have, and a measure of
how much protection they'll require from government in making sure
their transactions are secure, and they have some form of judicial
recourse if they are defrauded, robbed, etc.
You aren't being FORCED to pay more for anything. You can CHOOSE to
buy domestic goods or foreign goods. And since foreign goods are
usually cheaper due to foreign labor costs, your price will normally
remain unchanged or lower than domestic goods.
I will not entertain any ridiculous claims that your ownership of
property entitles you to bring goods across national borders or that
this is a "right" rather than a privilege. Such claims are outright
lies. I will also not entertain any notions that the government
doesn't have the legitimate authority to charge for the PRIVILEGE of
bringing goods across our borders. Neither of these laughable claims
holds any merit.
--- In [email protected], "Cory Nott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It may be more difficult logistically, but generally the people
transporting
> 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 <corynott@> 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 <ptireland@> 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.
