Dollar collapses, then what? Government and Economic Liberty 2/3

[veritasfiles]

Contracts would necessitate government involvement. Presumably the features of the contract would have to be legally binding and the government makes the laws. The same is true with property rights, which woudl be enforceable only through laws that the government makes. You can't say you want them out when they are an integral aspect of the very things you want them out of.

[veritasfiles]

Do you realize what you're describing? You're describing the problem of people being involved in the governing of people. There is quite simply no way to get around these problems. There is no way to make imperfect human beings and their actions idiot proof, as it relates to government, laws, and our rights or freedoms. This is why I say, dont' be so quick to dismiss what you have or at least the ultimate basis of what you have. I recommend you read "What We Can't Not Know".

[drutter]

Don't forget to set this video as a response to part 1, and set 3 as a response to this one. It helps viewers find them in the right order a lot easier.

[jman144]

thanks for the suggestion. I'll get right on that.

[qminusis]

Separate government and economics would be a good starting point. But also economics and property rights.

In my view soil should always belong to the ppl as a whole and should have no single owner per se. The right to use a foreign asset would put back ethics to producers and would avoid much of the destroying of the planet. What do you think?

[jman144]

Individual ownership of "land" is a very complex topic, which some free market people don't even argue for. Personally, I believe in private ownership of all means of production. So that includes land, labor, and capital. So individuals would be able to have title in land. If land is owned by everyone, then it is owned by no one. Concentration of benefits and losses is the best way efficiently use land. Definitely don't take my word for it look into it further. Thx for the comment!

[qminusis]

Its really seems that the ppl have forgotten that the constitution was made by businessmen and such who wanted to preserve a certain amount of power in their hands. So superficially it looks good to Joe Average but in deeper view it serves those who already had the power. The founders had to sell the constitution to the ppl and therefore many items are interpretable in different ways.

This might be the reason of why most congressmen don't really have a problem with the situation nowadays.

[jman144]

yep...there were a lot of conflicting interests among the writers of the constitution. I mean, you had jefferson the small government guy. Then you had Hamilton who basically wanted an American form of Mercantilism, complete with a central bank.  Why people are surprised that the Constitution then has loopholes within it that may allow for big government is beyond me. The key question is. Should we eliminate these loopholes? thanks for commenting.

[hiphopsocnroc]

IMO, we do have the rigth to contract in our private capacity, and if the government wants to infrige on that contract, they now become surety and must perform on the basis of that contract.

[DEMCAD]

I'm so glad that you're breaking this stuff down.