deed of property ownership and each purchaser of that property would have to
agree to the same thing, along with stipulation that contractual obligations
be passed on to the heirs. This sort of thing can be used for all sorts of
purposes and is what should be in place of zoning laws which are completely
arbitrary and subject to change on political whim. However, this cannot be
something the townspeople vote for and enforce on everyone else living it -
each individual property owner must accept it for his or her town. THe only
way to make an entire town, therefore, follow this sort of rule is that one
person owns a large tract of land which he then parcels out and sells to
people who agree to the attendant contractual obligations.
Such rules could also include the requirement that all the product of any
land owner be shared with all other residents of the township, essentially a
communist (or communitarian). In order to enforce such contracts, however,
the township could not use force directly, but must use the courts in the
case of grievances and sue for redress.
The Constitution is not a contract. The government of the United States does
not own my property nor has stipulated that I sign a contract to own it,
transport it, store it, sell it or do anything else. They merely set a fee
that they want to charge and I either pay it or give up my liberty and
probably the entire property as well.
Your argument that it is "logical that if a town can do this, then a country
can as well" is flawed - noone owned the country to begin with and noone
made all those who bought the land in the country sign a contract. They just
wrote up a piece of paper and suggested to everyone that it was a really
good idea to follow it because the alternative was a worse tyranny.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
I never spoke about imaginary lines. I spoke about real, tangible
lines, that limit the powers of various legitimate governments. 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. 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, 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.
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.
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.
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quoth Paul Ireland:
>
> > 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.
>
> Nice argument -- except you've never given any good reason why
> bringing goods across imaginary lines drawn by the strongest gang of
> thugs in an area for the purpose of extorting a protection fee is a
> "privilege." You're not even consistent, as you don't ascribe the same
> magical powers to these imaginary lines when it is people, rather than
> goods, crossing them.
>
> Tom Knapp
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
