Dollar collapses, then what? Government and Economic Liberty 1/3

My first video on youtube. I wanted to join the community and start out from a legal perspective. I will probably branch out into economics, current events as well. Hope you guys enjoy.

United States Constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

FEE video: http://fee.org/videos/52/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Economic rights
• Constitution
• US Supreme Court
• Tea Party
• Oath Keepers

[davincij15]

The questions are the wrong questions.

What economic and political structure will maximize freedom and prevents the lack of freedom?

Finally about the constitution...

What part of infringed do you not understand?

What part of only gold and silver shall be legal tender is difficult to understand?

[jman144]

As to the question...if government is limited in order to minimize the damage an individual or group can do. then by default the people will have maximum freedom. Second, as far as gold and silver being legal tender, that is a question for the supreme court to answer, that is a question I myself would like to have answered. However the legal tender law of the US, is a major problem. It should definitely be repealed, the government should not have a monopoly over money.

[davincij15]

Laws are only useful for a government that obeys them. A constitutional government is the best government however you can ask your federal representative if he votes for laws that obey the constitution he will gladly say they do not follow that document anymore.

They don't even hide it.

So what is a man to do when their own government does not obey the law, what good is laws to prevent government, the real criminals, from destroying us?

[jman144]

preaching to the choir. Thanks for the comments davinci, I am a big fan of yours.

[cv1122]

ah, Demcad and VV on the Supreme Court. Now there's a thought!!! great first post, lookng forward to your future videos.

your newest subscriber.

thanks BBN for the tip :)

[jman144]

thanks for subscribing!

[veritasfiles]

The problem you mention of interpretation will exist with any document that exists over time. The appropriate interpretation is not accomplished in a perfect way. So long as humans are involved, that will never be possible, no matter the document or government structure. Philosophically we've bought into the idea that the words of the Constitution change their meaning over time. If so, they the Constitution means nothing. That's where we have to start.

[veritasfiles]

Your second question is the better one, but I'm dubious as to whether you or I know enough to dismiss what the Founding Fathers put together. The Constitution is on no one's side, but any document can be abused by misinterpreting. But that's the problem. Rather than making a serious attempt to apply the Constitution's originally intended meaning, Judges have reinterpreted it according to their own times. This is where we get into trouble. Don't be so quick to dismiss the Constitution.

[wolfhalen]

well I would say our Constitutional republic is the best form of government so far known

now you raised the question of how it is interpreted today, and that is key, because it has been usurped in every way possible

there must be rule of law, that those in power also adhere to, but instead they use force of law against citizens and loopholes for themselves.

there are supposed to be checks and balances on power, "supposed to" being the key here

[bigbrownanimal]

Either way,congrats on getting the balls to start your channel, I look forward to your prospective.

[bigbrownanimal]

Index 1 crimes are usually perceived as horrible things, but is it possible that these crimes actually key elements in the evolution of the human species? Law doesn't actually stop "criminals" it just redefines the attributes of a good criminal. Instead of bank robber gangs, we have "banksters." Which one is actually better for the long term survival of the species? This is a give and take process and we need to accept that there will always be some drawback no matter the system of law.

[bigbrownanimal]

If we were going to rewrite the "foundation for government" I think we would need to start with the questions: "Is it in human nature to even have a government or system of law?" Is it beneficial to have a system of law? If so what are the pros and cons? If we have no formal system of law, would a natural system of law emerge anyways?(IE: gangs, the wild west, ect). Laws have the potential to channel human nature, but what is the purpose of that? What is main goal law is trying to achieve?

[drutter]

When I read it I noticed a lot of talk about indian tribes and so on. Surely most of that stuff doesn't belong in the actual Constitution itself, but in policy elsewhere? All people are equal in terms of their rights and freedoms, as far as I can see. The Constitution should reflect that IMO.

I'd love to see it re-written even just for fun. Does anyone know of a link to a rewritten Constitution? One in plain English updated for today's world? Would be an interesting read at least.

Thanks jman.

[drutter]

Hey man, welcome. I'll be checking out your videos. :) If you like silver at all, feel free to check out mine.

Re the Constitution. I"m Canadian and never had a care for it until recently. And I have to say I do believe it's a VERY good starting point. I agree that it needs interpretation. Is there any chance or talk about it being updated?

If revolution happens and it seems like it will (or at least should), could it be redone? I'm sure even suggesting that offends people - not my intention.

[davincij15]

Question about law if a contract is in gold and silver and one person can not preform can you win in court arguing that the highest law states that only gold and silver can be legal tender?

It is the law and it has not been repealed and no law can supersede it.

[davincij15]

Yes money is a product like a car or food or electricity it is free men who decide what is money not government.