>
> I never spoke about imaginary lines. I spoke about real, tangible
> lines, that limit the powers of various legitimate governments.
_____________________________________________________________________
I'm not sure, but I think that freedom of movement is one of
those "natural rights" which are at the core of libertarian thought
and that would include the freedom to move your property as well. As
such, it is a right that no government can encroach upon.
_____________________________________
The
> people of America (whether you were one of the original signers of
the
> Constitution or any of the millions who were born into it) granted
> legitiamate power to the government to regulate the goods that enter
> this country.
>
> To determine whether any law is legitimate all one must do is ask
what
> would happen if you didn't have a government.
____________________________________________________________________
Not a very libertarian criteria, methinks, but then I am not a
scholar in such matters. I think a better criteria for determining if
a law is legitimate might be whether it protects or encroaches upon
individual liberty.
_____________________________________
If there were a
> community of people who each owned land and these people agreed to
> protect each other from violence, attacks, etc., they could also
agree
> that nobody from outside thier community would be allowed to sell
> goods within the community they own,
____________________________________________________________________
It seems to me to be quite a leap (though not at all surprising given
the subtlety with which collectivist thinking can seep into the
arguments of even the most liberty minded among us) to go from
a "community of people [I would have said 'individuals'] who each
owned land [presumably you mean that each of the people owned his/her
own land]" to "the community they own". There is a huge difference
between the two.
____________________________________
without paying a fee to the town
> to cover the cost of having police, judges, lawyers, etc. to ensure
> that the business they conduct isn't fraudulent, theft, etc.
_____________________________________________________________________
Precluding, of course, any sort of arrangement whereby each merchant
(individual) hires his own protection and lawyers and, in the case of
a dispute over the "legality" of a business transaction, hires a
private judge (omsbudsman, mediator, adjudicator or whatever), you
would prefer to give the "tyranny of the majority" the power to crush
the individual liberty of the merchants (individuals) who may
have "voted" against such a scheme in the first place? In other
words, your community is not one of individuals who each own land,
but rather a community of "townspeople" (or whatever other
collectivist identity you want to give them.)
_____________________________________
> Since the people who own property in the town can do this, it is
> logical that the people of the whole country can do it too. And
when
> this country was created and the foundation of our laws was made
(all
> people born after this and who live within America are also bound to
> it) through a Constitution, they granted power to the government to
> collect such a fee. Nobody has a right to bring goods from outside
> the community to sell them just because they happen to own the goods
> they bought. In fact even if they own a home in the community, the
> agreed upon laws state that if THE GOODS come from out of town, the
> fee must be paid. No amount of ranting or shouting on the part of a
> person trying to bring goods from out of town into town to sell
grant
> him the right to do it. He is held to the laws of the town, even if
> he bought property in the town after the laws were made.
_____________________________________________________________________
It would seem to me that he would be held to the laws of the town
only if his contract for the purchase of the house (or some other
contract which he agreed to sign) made him so. (I understand that I
am talking in hypotheticals, since obedience to the state is in
reality a prerequisite for living anywhere these days).
__________________________________
> The same is true of the Constitution. Whether you agree with it or
> not, you are held to it. If you don't like it, change it or get the
> hell out. Those are your only choices. Too bad if you don't like
it.
_____________________________________________________________________
I take it you disagree with Lysander Spooner's notion of the
longevity of contracts - or his contention that the United State
Constitution even is a contract. I personally don't care much for
being subjected to loyalty oaths in order to be able to live
anywhere. I will defend the United State Constitution to the extent
that it can be used to hobble the power of the federal government,
but just because it "gives" the power to regulate foreign commerce to
the federal government, doesn't mean that the federal government has
to regulate foreign commerce - or that it would even be proper for it
to do so.
Viva la revolution! Power to the state, eh, Paul?
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.
