>
> 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.
______________________________________________________________________
Just so we understand each other: you do agree that "foreign goods"
are the property of their owner, the individual who purchased them
outside of the "country" and wants to bring them into the "country",
don't you? So what you are saying is that the state can impose
a "property tax" on those goods and call it a tariff. Why is that any
different than a "property tax" which is imposed on property obtained
inside the country? (Or perhaps you support the state's "authority"
to impose "property taxes"?) Why do you define two (maybe more, I
don't know) different classes of "property"? As I understand it, the
libertarian notion of property is that it is that which is created or
obtained through non-agression, mutually agreed transactions. I have
never heard a libertarian offer a definition of two (or maybe more)
different classes of "property" until now (and I still don't accept
the two classes of property definition as libertarian anyhow).
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.
