 | | Re: Customs question...
|
|
richard marchetti wrote in message ... (...) abroad (...) This message baffles me. When I read the first line I assumed Richard was going to say that one should not write gift on the customs form when it ain't. However, he's saying the opposite. (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Okay. So what? Is lying of this type supposed to rate high on the sin-o-meter? I barely care, nor do many others I suspect. I am tired of trying to make the world a better place -- it ain't gonna happen. I just want to do what those with money (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So your saying it's ok to sin a little bit? What if I steal only a little bit? Would that be ok? I don't think it is. Where do you draw the line? (...) Maybe what you do won't change the whole world, but you might affect one or two people and (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Is it a sin to break a law that is morally incorrect? Is it a sin to abide by a law that is morally incorrect? Stealing is way different than evading customs impositions that hinder free trade or than evading laws against victimless crimes, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So who gets to decide what is morally incorrect? You? Me? Isn't breaking the law, breaking the law? (Hmm, about to kill my entire arguement here, but I guess I break the law regularly by speeding.) (...) But is this a victimless crime? If you (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Warning for those involved: the above is one of the classic examples of The False Dilemma falacy, which states among other things, "if no clear line of distinction exists between A and Z, then A is the same as Z." Unless, of course, you think (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Actually, no. Since we are essentially immune to this silly customs tax (certainly, I have never been thusly taxed as a person in the U.S.) if we white lie by marking items as "gifts" or "cadeaux" we do so for the benefit of others. I have (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I guess you shouldn't care what laws of another country you break. (...) Yes. I am willing to accept that. We do pick and choose which ones are important to us, as individuals. (...) I think your wrong on that point. I know I don't contort (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I don't think all lies are equal. But shouldn't we try to avoid lying when and where we can? As I already said in a reply to Richard, the end result is that you, for yourself, have to decide what works for you in your life. What "Little (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Is that how you define "honesty"? Or is that how you define "moral"? Is honesty necessarily moral? If you ask me, if you're honest with respect to putting the little "gift" mark on a package, then you *DON'T* mark it as a gift no matter *WHAT* (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) You were asking him, but I'll answer with my opinion anyway... No, it is not immoral to lie, in general. Was it immoral for the UK to place large inflatable tanks in empty fields to mislead the Germans about where the invasion was being (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) But you would probably argue that you are *moral*, while dishonest, or at least "not immoral", I'm guessing? Or at least that you would argue that one could *be* dishonest (by marking "gift") and yet still be moral, even though maybe you're (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I would argue that it is *not* dishonest to lie to someone or something that has first lied to me. Which is why I put "honest" in quotes because the definition of honesty that would require me to sacrifice myself at the whim of a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So it's only being honest when the other person hasn't lied to you? What if you don't *know* that they've lied to you? Or that you don't know that they *haven't* lied to you? Nah, I completely disagree. If someone's been dishonest to you and (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I think the problem here is the definition of "honest". It doesn't only cover truth (and lies). Check out the dictionary.com definition: hon·est (adj). 1. Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer. 2. Not deceptive or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Alright, I blame English. I've always thought of it as being truthful. I don't usually equate it with virtuous other than to say that I think honesty is generally virtuous. If that's how Larry's interpreting it, 'sok by me. I'll just have to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Actually, strike that. I still don't agree with Larry. Just because someone is dishonest (read 'lacking integrity' / 'deceptive' / 'unfair' / 'untruthful' / 'insincere' / 'unreputable' / 'with affectation' / 'unvirtouous') to you, doesn't mean (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) But the act of marking it as a gift might be a gift. So what then? Chris (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Is it OK if you're starving and stealing food from someone who has more than they need? (...) I should. I have made it a long-term life-philosophy. But not because of some notion of right and wrong. I have two reasons. The first is that I want (...) (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Well, considering that the "gift" denotes the contents of the package (or so I would assume the "law" dictates), then no, not really... DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) But if I sell you an old 3055 (say) for $3 & postage is "Merchandise" more appropriate than "gift"? Merchandise is more for describing buying from a commercial organisation. If anyone is selling several thousand dollars worth pa then perhaps (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Not unless you define merchandise as necessarily above a certain cost or from a certain source. I'd say merchandise in this case is when you've paid for the contents of the package. If you only paid shipping, then, sure, mark it as a gift. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I'm am talking about the intent of the form. If I as an individual am selling you goods as an individual I do not view that as "merchandise" when I fill in the form. If I as an entrepreneur were selling goods to you and others for profit then (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I agree with David. A sale is a sale. If you received any payment for it, it's merchandise. Even if you only paid for shipping. Anything else is lying, at least to yourself, and possibly to the world at large when you make such a specious (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) If my seven year old son trades his PBJ at the lunch table in school for the next kid's swiss on rye, was it merchandise? If not, is it because of your profit clause above, or because it wasn't a cash transaction? He thought it was a (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I don't agree. In your situation you are knowingly and deliberately lying, breaking the law and trying to make some clumsy political point whilst doing so. I am disagreeing with the interpretation of the word “merchandise". Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Lets make this crystal clear... suppose you and I both lived in the US and we had the same level of yearly sales (say 5 things a year, well below what you and I do in actuality) and we had identical lots to buyers in the same country (say OZ). (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So if you make enough money, you're a commercial organisation? What if I sell you my car? Is that enough? What if I sell cookies that I make every weekend? How about if I just sell cookies for one weekend? Problem I have is that defining (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Bottom line is that *you* don't get to define merchandise, the people who wrote the form (and made the law) do. Doesn't matter what you think. thanks, James (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) The form, at least in the US is very terse. There is essentially no explanatory text. It seems to me that they leave it up to my discretion to use the form how I see fit. What do you check if the package contains gifts and merchandise? Both? (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) I think we're getting way off here-- the question is "Is it honest to mark packages as 'gift'?" Is the PBJ merchandise? Eh, I dunno. I'd hesitate to call it such. But I certainly wouldn't call it a gift. If you're trading Lego for Lego? Eh, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) Yes, both received something of value (to them) in exchange for their goods. (...) Again, you're receiving something of value for your goods, so it's not a gift. Generally, in working out a trade, both parties agree on some kind of monetary (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Yeah, its gets attenuated pretty fast. In the U.S. such a thing has it's origins in congressionally generated legislations, is duplicated by administrative law (sometimes with errors, additions, and omissions), and implemented by people that (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) Whereas I would call it a lie but not necessarily dishonest. I go back to my example I gave earlier. Are inflatable tanks lies? Yes. Are they morally wrong? Not necessarily. (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) US D of I ROSCO (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) However, your "act of kindness" may result in a lot of extra trouble for the recipient, if it's proved false. At best, they'll have to pay the duty anyway, but there may well be other penalties. If they *ask* you to mark it as a gift, then I (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) How can someone be held accountable for something they did not do? Customs would have to prove that the recipient falsely asked me to mark the package as a gift. Failing that, the recipient has done no wrong -- committed no positive act in the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) <snip description of legal mumbo-jumbo> (...) Personally I don't give a wet noodle how you mark your customs forms, unless you happen to be sending them to me, in which case I'd prefer honesty in the declaration. I'm not vehemently opposed to (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Their views/wants are irrelevant in this. It is *you* who are filling in the form. It is *you* who are deliberately committing fraud. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Nope. It doesn't. At least, not in a legal sense Legally, you don't have a say. *Especially* if it's in another country :) Does it matter what you think in terms of how moral you are? Sure. How honest you are? Sure. (...) Ah-- debatably (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Or the principle says that it's a particularly moral act because you're standing up, willing to deny funding (in a small way) to a corrupt bureaucracy. If you think that's so. Those of us who think that governance is bad have it particularly (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Agreed I spose-- I was more or less implying my own morality for myself (or was trying), but yes, if you find it to be moral, yeah. However, the more I think about it, the less I can concieve of it being actual "moral", so much as "justified". (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) anyway, (...) Whether or not they know the declaration was untruthful, they have failed to pay duty on goods which require it by law. If you're importing goods, it's your responsibility to pay the appropriate duty (at least in Australia). The (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) even (...) was (...) Well, your three categories of morality isn't my baby, and I'm not even sure I agree with it as morality-o-meter, but let's look at it this way: (...) You're defining justice as truth? I think it is fairness and/or equity. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) (Honestly curious) So how would you categorize subsets of morality? I've basically attempted to come up with different ways in which to violate morality. The two most basic being "that's not fair" or "that's mean". One might also say "you (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I guess, ultimately it's your decision, however if you go against the client's wishes (either lying without their consent *or* not lying after they ask you to), it may well be deterimental to any future dealing, so realistically, it's probably (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I haven't denied that I'm breaking a law. (...) But you haven't given a yes or no answer to this question. Repeating, is it your assertion that when you rationalise something for your convenience that you're fundamentally honest than someone (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) "merchandise". (...) But it's *them* who requested it, it's *them* who benefits (or not, if customs disagrees with the declaration), and it's *them* who may think twice about dealing with you in future if you decline their request. As I've (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Yep. If you value your future dealing above your "honesty" towards their government, as well as valuing their happiness above your "honesty", so be it. (...) Nope. It's only the client's decision if they have that much sway over you. If you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) client's (...) But even if they don't have that much sway over you, and you choose to say "no", they may well choose to say "forget the deal" and you have no decision to make anyway (except what to put in the negative feedback comments). So (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Your question is not valid. Post a valid one, and I'll do my best to answer it. That's the kind of guy I am. That's the kind of guy you are not. I thought it was thanksgiving? Should you not be spending time with your family? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I'm not sure. I guess my strongest notion about morality is that it's a bogus idea (like religion) designed to manipulate others into building a society that benefits certain people. (i.e. my sense of morality, had I one that I championed, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I agree-- although I don't think I'd word it quite so :) But more or less, I think that's a fair assessment. (...) Well, given the above agreement that morality is aesthetic, who cares about what they think? We're talking about the person (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Nope. Because you still had to make the decision to say "no" to them :) And certainly they have the power to make you not have to *make* a decision by never even beginning to buy your product, but that doesn't affect your moral valuation, IE (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
