that does.
You asked 2 questions. 1) You asked to name other sorts of contracts
people are "born" into. Ok. Titles of Nobility, wills, etc.
2) You asked who smugglers are aggressing against. They are
aggressing against "We the people". They are trespassing and stealing
from all of "we the people". In case you hadn't noticed, "We the
people" are those who run America, the ones who created America, and
the ones who own America's borders.
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Keign
> > 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.
>
> In other words, the above is true because Paul Ireland says it's true.
> Good luck selling that one.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> There was never any question about that. However, in the scenario I
> gave, there were 10 landowners, and no such agreement. Even your
> scenario implies a much higher threshold (unanimous original consent)
> than the US Constitution, which was framed and ratified by a miniscule
> fraction (I'd be surprised if it was as high as 1/100th of one
> percent) of the population.
>
> > 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
>
> Feel free to describe examples of other "contracts" to which people
> become party not by consent, but by being born.
>
> > 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.
>
> There are two elements to aggression (see "crimes, victimless"). In
> this case, you describe the importer as an aggressor. Against
> precisely whom is he aggressing, and what form (i.e. damage) does that
> aggression take?
>
> Tom Knapp
>
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.
