And you have completely failed to mention the 10th person who did not agree to the contract or constitution and their descendants. And if they intermingle their descendants they could claim immunity from the contract on the basis of that decent. The vote for the constitution was not unanimous. There were people who voted against it. The constitution was imposed upon them by force. And the contract is not applicable to them or their descendants.
BWS
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2006 6:09 pm
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
> Your illogic fails in teh light of my solid and legitimate logic
> because you claim someone has a "right" they DON'T HAVE.
> Nobody....let me repeat.....NOBODY has a "RIGHT" to bring foreign
> goods into this country for the purpose of selling them. Not even if
> they own land within the country. This is a PRIVILEGE, not a right
> and every time someone claims it as a right, I'll correct them.
>
> Now to your scenario.
>
> If all 9 people who own parcels on the island agree that nobody will
> bring goods into the island from somewhere else without collecting a
> fee which will be used to pave roads for all 9 property owners, to pay
> for security for them, and to build a courthouse and a local
> system of
> justice. Let's say these people call this contract a "Constitution"
> and this contract (much like CC&R's) continue long after the original
> property owner is dead and applies to every property owner who
> subsequently holds any of that land.
>
> Now comes your situation where the offspring of one of the original
> property holders now wants to import diamonds.
>
> According to you, it's an infringement of his rights to hold him to
> the contract he became part of the moment he was born on the
> island or
> the moment he became the owner of the land. If he doesn't like the
> rules on the island, he can go elsewhere. He can sell his land to
> another person (who would also be required to follow the original
> contract) and buy land somewhere else.
>
> In any case, it's not an act of aggression to make them pay the
> fee to
> import the diamonds. It would, however, be an act of aggression to
> sneak them in without paying.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Quoth Paul Ireland:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I'm not sure how my logic fails in the face of your illogic.
> >
> > Obviously, any property owner has the right to determine whether or
> > not goods will be sold on his property and if so under what
> > conditions. The missing link is just exactly how you get from
> that to
> > the notion that a bunch of property owners get to draw imaginary
> lines> on property that they DON'T own and charge a fee to anyone
> (including> one of their fellow property owners) who wants to
> exercise his right
> > to convey and/or trade his property as he pleases, said fee
> allegedly> in return for services that he may or may not want to
> purchase, and
> > may or may not ever use.
> >
> > There may be a way to determine whether or not you really mean what
> > you say. Let's use your hypothetical island:
> >
> > There are ten property owners, each with one equal parcel of
> land on
> > the island (all property is owned). Nine of the parcels are on the
> > island's perimeter, one is in the center.
> >
> > The owner of the parcel at the center of the island decides he wants
> > to import some diamonds from the mainland and sell them.
> >
> > One other parcel owner (one of those with a parcel on the coast
> at one
> > side and adjoining the importer's parcel on the other) agrees to
> allow> the center parcel owner to have the diamonds landed on his
> coastal> parcel and transported across it to the central parcel,
> where they
> > will be sold.
> >
> > Do the other eight parcel owners have any right to demand that the
> > importer pay a fee for this importation, or not? If so, why?
> >
> > Tom Knapp
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
