Showing posts with label statist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statist. Show all posts

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Steve Anderson at the AZ Breakfast Club














Steve Anderson is the brave American who stood up to the Thugs known as the Border Patrol and DPS. Gives a live account of his experience as he asserts his constitutional Rights to a Border Patrol Check point outside Yuma Arizona. Hey Border Patrol News Flash: the "BORDER" is 50 miles south of where your "checkpoint" is! Perhaps if you would patrol the "BORDER" instead inside the united states you would get more work done!!

Editors note: Attorney Marc J. Victor is representing Steve so these Nazi bastards will get what's coming to them. They sould all be swinging from the end of a rope in my opinion.

See videos here: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?Info=0055210

Monday, September 8, 2008

Hayek Was Right: The Worst Do Get to the Top



Those who, in Hayek’s words, “think that it is not the system which we need fear, but the danger that it might be run by bad men,” are naïve utopians who will forever be disappointed by the socialist outcome. Indeed, this is the history of twentieth-century statism—the endless search for a place where the dream might actually be made to work, settling on a spot until disaster is embarrassingly apparent to all, then blaming persons rather than the system and flitting off to the next inevitable disappointment. Perhaps someday, the dictionary definition of “statist” may read, “Someone who learns nothing from human nature, economics, or experience, and repeats the same mistakes over and over again without a care for the rights and lives of people he crushes with his good intentions.”

Friday, June 20, 2008

How To Debate A Statist


Well, really there is no way to debate with a statist because they are braindead to begin with, but here are some good talking points.


Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail – where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays “protection” money to, can it be really argued that he is making a “free” choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands – but will be forced to marry one of them – can she said to be really “choosing” marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.