Canadian Freeman, Brian Alexander, the subject of some recent hit pieces against him, is scheduled to be on Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, September 15, 2013 at 8 PM Eastern on Truth Frequency Radio.
I found it worthy to counter the overwhelmingly negative comments from readers to the Toronto Star article, stemming mostly from the Freeman movement being misunderstood.
Here are my comments that the censors kept up on the site:
“Some taxes are necessary to pay for legitimate government services. We got by fine in Canada before WWI without a personal income tax. Is the private sector, which still makes up the bulk of our economy, really that inefficient in providing these additional goods and services on a voluntary basis, that our government is providing by force?”
“They’re not “anti-government”. They’re pro, limited government — government limited to the protection of life, liberty and property. That, therefore, does not include most of what Canada’s federal and provincial governments engage in today (i.e. telling us what we can and can’t consume, redistributing wealth from average people to wealthy land developers, bribing us with our own money, …). The U.S. is a great example now of what happens when government becomes increasingly unlimited.”
“They’re not saying they don’t want roads, or don’t want to pay for them. They object to being forced to pay for them. It would be nice if gas taxes actually went directly and only to pay for roads, instead of the general revenue, where it can be spent on whatever politicians decide, including paying interest on our massive debt incurred from extravagant spending.”
“If you don’t like it, get out.” — A lot of Canadian hi-tech workers, doctors and entrepreneurs did get out of Canada when we had stifling taxes in the 90s, up until we reduced them to be more than competitive relative to the U.S., with the effects being felt over the last four years when we have been ranked more economically free than the U.S. for the first time ever.”
And here are the ones that they removed, keeping this important information away from subsequent readers:
““He drives without a license” — it’s lawful to travel on public roads without a license. Getting a license entitles you to be a commercial driver. Of course you will run into all sorts of problems travelling without a license, and there are some public safety benefits to travelling with one, but it is our right to do so without having a license to “drive”.”
“@Couch Potato: It’s an offense if you have a license and don’t have it in your possession, or if you’re driving someone for a fee without a license. You really need to read the Highway Traffic Act carefully, as I have, and study the legal meaning of words like driver, license, lawful, legal, statute, right and privilege.”
“I hope you’re not implying that being insured means safer roads. New Hampshire has no mandatory auto liability insurance, and it has among the safest roads in the U.S., in large part because individual drivers will be held fully and personally liable for any negligence, instead of relying on other lottery ticket (insurance) holders to pick up the tab.”
“Drunk driving is a separate issue. In that case, you’re potentially capable of posing a clear and present threat to others on the road, and drunk drivers can be dealt with criminally independently of whether they are licensed or not.”
“Drive without one, no, but travel, yes. We have a common law right to travel. Driver is a legal term meaning you are licensed to transport others for payment. Steve Jobs used to drive without a license [plate] and there are a few in U.S. states I know of who have done it. Canada is no different, in principle, being a common law jurisdiction. Of course you will be repeatedly stopped and detained by police, if you are going about your business lawfully, but it’s still your right.”
“He [Oliver Wendell Holmes] said [“taxes are what we pay for a civilized society”] that in the U.S. in 1935 — back when federal spending was 13% of GDP, from official historical tables. In 2011, it was 38.9%. Only anarchists argue for no government. The question is, are we getting our money’s worth these days?“