ring would be called crimnals, if a majority does it, they still
would be crimnals, if 90% of the people extort money out of others
they still would be crimnals. Durning WW 2 FDR pushed through an
EXcutive Order to take less than 2 tenths of 1% of the peoples land,
homes, businesses and put them in CAmps far from their Homes, these
included Japanse- Americans, Italian Americans and German Americans.
Even if all of the other 99.8% of Americans wanted this done they had
no right to grant the authority to the government to do it, without
proper due process of law and proving beyond a reasonable doubt to a
jury of 12 people why it was just to do
that.
Paul, the government can not justly enforce a tax without proper
due process and proving its case beyond a reasonable
doubt.
The government has no right of appeal but the tax payer does if
he loses the jury
trial.
Paul , I assume you do not want to deny people due process and
the right to a proper jury.--- In [email protected], "Paul"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wrong. Both governments have been placed in charge of the borders
of
> each nation and it doesn't matter if someone owns land within the
> nation, just that they are bringing goods from one nation into
> another. Each nation is placed in charge of guarding the borders of
> that nation and granted the authority to charge tariffs on behalf of
> those who live in the country as a PRIVILEGE to sell goods within
that
> country.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <cottondrop@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Taking goods from one persons property to another persons
property if
> > both parties agree for the property to be tranfered is not a
> > privildge unless it can be shown that the government is providing
a
> > service that one or both of the parties agreed too, or that the
> > government is the owner of the property or is part owner of the
> > property with a right to charge the fee. Just because the
government
> > says it has a right to charge the fee does not make it so, if the
two
> > property owners in posseion of the property challenge the
governments
> > claim as defedents the government must prove its case before a
jury
> > if the owners want a jury.--- In
[email protected], "Paul"
> > <ptireland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > All taxes are not force. For instance a gas tax. One could
choose
> > > not to use gas. One could use an entirely electric car and
avoid
> > the
> > > tax all together. Therefore it's not force because someone has
> > made a
> > > CHOICE to use gas, and therefore agrees to pay the fee (aka tax)
> > > associated with it. If they choose not to pay it, they can
CHOOSE
> > to
> > > use an electric car or another conveyance.
> > >
> > > A right can not be taxed, but a privilege can be. For instance
the
> > > PRIVILEGE of bringing goods across national borders. This is
not a
> > > right and has nothing to do with the right of property
ownership.
> > It
> > > is a PRIVILEGE offered by governments for a fee.
> > >
> > > If you make a choice to bring those goods across national
borders,
> > > you're CHOOSING to pay the fee associated with them. If you
try to
> > > bring your goods across without paying, you're committing an
act of
> > > aggression in the form of trespass and theft.
> > >
> > > Illigitimate taxes would include a breathing tax, an eating
tax, an
> > > income tax, or a sleeping tax.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000"
<cottondrop@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All taxes are intation of force, otherwise the fees are not
> > taxes.---
> > > > In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean like accurately describing a tariff as not using
the
> > > > > initiation of force? And for those who smuggle goods
across
> > > > national
> > > > > borders of initiating force? And thoroughy proving
logically,
> > > > > reasonably, intelligently, and from a libertarian
perspective
> > that
> > > > not
> > > > > all taxes are theft, and not all taxes amount to the
initiation
> > of
> > > > > force while disproving every inaccurate, false, and
misleading
> > > > > statement you tried to make to the contrary?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Paul <ptireland@>
> > > > > > > Wrong. Comparing Christianity to Libertarianism is an
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > perfect analogy. Christianity has a set belief system
and
> > so
> > > > does
> > > > > > > libertarianism. Christianity has a core belief that
> > separates
> > > > its
> > > > > > > belief system from others. In this case the belief in
> > Jesus of
> > > > > > > Nazareth. In the case of Libertarianism it's the
believe
> > in
> > > > and
> > > > > > > support of the non-aggression principle. If someone
does
> > not
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > in the nap, the term "libertarianism" is as
inappropriate
> > for
> > > > them
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > is "Christianity" for a Satan worshiping.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All paths do not lead to liberty. Some lead to
aggression,
> > and
> > > > those
> > > > > > > that lead to aggression always lead away from liberty.
> > > > Aggression in
> > > > > > > the name of liberty is like rape in the name of
virginity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly like supporting tariffs and saying it isn't a tax
> > when it
> > > > > really is. And then denying that fact that all taxes are
> > initiated
> > > > > aggression.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BWS
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
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.
