>
> This is where your logic fails.
>
> On an island without a government, people can legitimately band
> together to defend rights, but not to violate them. People do have
> the right to determine whether or not someone else will be allowed to
> sell goods within their combined and/or collective property.
_____________________________________________________________________
How is it that "people" "determining" whether someone will be allowed
to sell goods is not a violation of their right to property? And why
do "people" have such a right?
_____________________________________________________________________
This
> means they can grant this power to government. Nobody on an island
> has the right to tell another person what medicines they will or won't
> take, what weapons they will or won't own, or what religion they will
> follow. This means they can't grant this power to government.
>
> Tariffs are legitimate. Drug laws, gun laws, abortion laws, and and
> religious laws are not.
_______________________________________________________________________
Let me see if I understand what you are saying: taking drugs, owning
guns, having an abortion, and practicing a religion are "rights" - not
privileges which exist at the whim of the "people" - of an individual
which the "government" cannot encumber. On the other hand, owning and
disposing of property are not "rights" - but rather privileges which
exist at the whim of the "people" - of an individual and therefore are
subject to being encumbered by "government".
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.
