Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: aZerkonXaZerkonX Date: Mar 5, 2008 07:25
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:39:12 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Does free speech precede each and every free trade?
>
>> Are they not the same?
>
> It's easy to tax a trade. Just take x%% of the transaction.
>
> How do you tax speech?
>> Trade being one form of speech.
>
>> One can trade without speech.
I really do not understand the importance of this idea which seems so
important to others.
Yes you can trade without speech per se. 'Trade' is a bullshit euphemism
for buying something. One can easily go to a store, get something, pay
for it and not say a word in doing so.
If the act of getting something then giving something for it is
considered speech (act of expression) and by doing what is essentially a
contractual act you get taxed for it, speech is taxed.
Another point:
Is buying water, food and shelter a free trade? No. You can not have a
'free trade' if the item is a life necessity. This very un-free trade is
compounded if the seller is the only seller and there is no 'freedom' to
buy from anyone else. It is not "Free trade" or "free market" if: you
must buy something and/or you must buy something from one seller.
> The federal judiciary has defined "free speech" to include all
> communitive activity. Searcy v Crim, 207 U.S. 482 (1959)
>
>> It does not follow though that the money used in trade is speech.
>
> ? ?
Referring to campaign money as a form of speech.
| 
