Kate Steinle Verdict - Not Guilty

I believe the world is full of people who want to destroy freedom, we have too many of them already here, we have to control who comes here

tenor.gif
 
I believe the world is full of people who want to destroy freedom, we have too many of them already here, we have to control who comes here or we will not be able to keep what we have let alone get more, the closer we get to true freedom the more true this principle becomes.

Notice how you want to make decisions for other people who don't want to go along with your decisions, and then include them in this "we," whose actions you propose to regulate.
 
As a professed anti-statist, I hold that "the State" has no legitimate authority to restrict the movement of individuals, regardless of imaginary "lines on a map". That said, at a minimum, this man should have been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. IF THE STATE IS GOING TO EXIST it should be limited to some basic utility, and thus by a quote-unquote constitutionalist standard he should have been found as such.

This finding is a travesty, in my view. I find it highly likely that this was a political finding, in that his racial and immigrant status was the overarching circumstance in the jury's decision, and not the facts of the case. I believe that had a white native male been the subject of the trial, the finding would have been for the prosecution.

THIS is actual ANARCHY, as the nay-sayers of anti-statism actually portray it (as opposed to the thoughtful statelessness that we anti-statists propose).
 
Who or what is dobie?

In any case if you control your border you can be as free as you allow yourself to be inside it, if you leave it you can only be as free as the people outside allow you to be, if you don't control it you can only be as free as whoever crosses it allows you to be.

Dobby was a charachter in Harry Potter. Harry freed Dobby by showing him some kindness.

image


http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Dobby
 
That's mathematically impossible.

Whether it is or not is inconsequential to the matter at hand.

What is offensive to individual liberty is The Vote (tm) itself. Further, it is offensive to individual liberty to suggest that individual liberty is advanced by restricting the physical movement of non-violent human beings.

That being said, this POS who shot Ms. Steinle, either intentionally or accidentally, should have found his tit in a legitimate ringer, his "immigrant status" not withstanding (and that seems to be the fact lost upon the Trumpistas)... and I hope he does find it so one way or another.

ETA: I know where I'd be on this matter, were I her relative.
 
Further, it is offensive to individual liberty to suggest that individual liberty is advanced by restricting the physical movement of non-violent human beings.

Do they want government to exist and violate your precious NAP to a much greater degree than you claim minarchists do?

Does that not make them VIOLENT by your definitions?

You can't use the word one way to tar minarchists and then change the definition to defend the invading barbarians.
 
Laugh it up, but the data shows immigrants from south of the border and their progeny vote for bigger government at nearly double the rate as natives.

That's OK. They are only half as likely to vote in the first place. That makes it a wash. Plus net immigration from Mexico stopped in 2007. It's now the Asians you need to watch out for.

frey-race-blog_fig1a_new.png


new-new-new.png
 
Stop using that phrase if you don't even know what a rate is.

What are the rates? If the immigrant voting block is so powerful and we have had such massive waves of immigration (according to some), how did Republicans even have a shot at controlling all three branches of government?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top