necessary so thus taxes are necessary. For the sake of argument we
say the first is true, why in the world would the second be true, it
does not make sense. food and water is a necessity but we don't have
a right to force others to pay for our food and water. They use the
public good argument saying everyone enjoys the benifit of government
so thus taxes are necessary. Ok for the sake of argument we give
them that government is a public good but how in the world does that
demand taxes. A pretty women walks into a public building, every man
enjoys the benifit of her good looks but they don't owe her money.
This same pretty women is also a good cook and invites all the men to
supper, eating is a necessity and she is offering to feed them, so
durning the meal or after the meal why should she have a right to
demand the men pay her for the food they had
eat?
2004 fiqures on imports show less than 1.5 trillion dollars in
imports, Pauls 3% traiff on 1.5 trillion would bring 45 billion in
revenue. Total income in the country is around 10 trillion dollars,
45 billion be less than half of a percent on national income, if only
half the people gave an equal percentage donation it would take less
than 1% of their income, if only 25% gave it would be 1.8% of income
or less than 700 dollars a year for an average wage earner. If only
10% gave that would be 4.5% of income around 1,660 dollars for the
average wage earner, the request could be for 3,000 dollars a year
but donations above 3,000 would be refused so to not give the rich a
possible upper hand It is very reasonable to suspect that the natural
leaders could convince at least 10% of Americans to give 3,000
dollars a year to government, if they can't then you are not going to
have a honest government anyway so there is no point in having a
public instition called government. Of course many would give less
than 3,000 a year, probally a majority would give something.--- In
[email protected], "kiddleddee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
