Now, by your admission collective property is voluntary. No matter how many people vote on it, no one has the right to limit my property. In the 10 person island mentioned previously, if the vote is 9 to 1, only the 9 are limited by the agreement. No one may impose an involuntary obligation on someone else. A tariff is not voluntary by nature. You claims are wrong. it is the fallacy of unwarranted assumption to say that anyone else has the right to limit my movement of my property in any way or to charge for something that is a right and not a privilege. (this is something else you refuse to even try to prove).
So we have 1) an authoritarian minded argument for tariffs, 2) an authoritarian claim of limiting property rights and 3) repeated refusal to give logical or rational argument. The conclusion is obvious but because it would be an ad hominen I'll not mention it.
BWS
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2006 3:56 pm
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
> You're completely wrong and your claims fly in the face of logic,
> reason, and facts.
>
> There is collective property without an initiation of force. Let's
> say my brother and I decide to buy a farm. We both own it
> together.
> Let's say the people from the farms around us also own farms with
> several owners. And let's say that we make our own town, and all
> voluntarily give a small part of our farm to build a courthouse, city
> hall, school, etc. All of those things are owned in common by all of
> us. We all have an equal right to the usage of those things.
> This is
> not a violation of rights, an initiation of force, and it's entirely
> libertarian, and best of all it proves you wrong, yet again.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And your's fails where you assume that collective property is a
> legitimate concept. There is no such thing as collective property
> absent an initiation of force. And initiation of force is
> contra-moral, and contra-libertarian.
> >
> > BWS
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:33 am
> > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
> >
> > > 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. 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> > > <thomaslknapp@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoth Paul Ireland:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > And they could agree that decapitation is the proper penalty for
> > > > possession of marijuana.
> > > >
> > > > And they could agree that having a handgun merits a prison
> sentence.> > >
> > > > And they could agree that if the guy down the road has a 55-
> gallon> > > drum in his garage that may have something dangerous,
> it's okay for
> > > > them to go over and burn his house down, just in case.
> > > >
> > > > And they could agree that if someone floats, she must be
> made of
> > > wood,> and is therefore a witch, and therefore should be burned.
> > > >
> > > > They could agree on any or all of those things. They
> probably
> > > wouldn't> try to portray their claims as "libertarian," though.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Knapp
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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.
