>
> OK.
>
> I believe I have figured out Paul's argument.
>
> He starts with a premise that not all taxes are aggression.
>
> He then continues with tariffs are a form of non-aggressive taxes.
>
> Next he concludes that since tariffs are not an act of aggression,
they are allowed by libertarian philosophy as they do not contradict
the NAP.
>
> If his premises were true his conclusion would be true since his
argument is logically valid.
>
> Unfortunately his first premise is false.
______________________________________________________________________
Boyd, nice argument against the substance of Paul's argument. But
that leaves the hysterical portion of his argument - the one that all
statists fall back on when they find themselves in a contradictory
mass of tangled logic. "The Constitution says government can levy
tariffs so love it or leave it." This is the second argument we have
been having with Paul. Nothing logical about it, but it's a
particular version of the fall back position for all (United State of
Americans, at least) who can't otherwise defend their assault of
liberty.
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.
