Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

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

More From: jman144

Loading...
Play All Stop Autoplaying | Play Next

QuickList(0)

1
Clear | Save

Related Videos

Featured Videos

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
14 ratings
Sign in to rate
138 views
Flag
close
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
close
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
close
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...
Sign in to post a Video Response

Video Responses (1)

View All - Play All
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (8)   Options

Loading...
drutter (1 month ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
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 (1 month ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
thanks for the suggestion. I'll get right on that.
qminusis (1 month ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
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 (1 month ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
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 (1 month ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
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 (1 month ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
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 (1 month ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
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 (1 month ago) Show Hide
+2
Marked as spam
I'm so glad that you're breaking this stuff down.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.