This man's cheeky attitude is cute and all but while he stands at his pulpit with his facetious arguments America has descended into the full-blown communist hell that is the modern USSA.
Love this guy, brilliant. What has happened to the rights of the people? I'm currently being told I can't live on my land in my motorhome. Even though I can't afford to live anywhere else. I'm being cited and fined $1000 by code enforcement. If I can't pay the fine, my property will be taken from me. I guess I don't have the right to basic survival, or to enjoy the use of property that is the fruit of my labors. I need help. Thank you
@@damianwilson2255 Thank you for your question. It's been interesting and for the most part uneventful. I've not been harassed by the government during the pandemic. The population of the small economically depressed area I live in has doubled in just over one year. Last summer I surrounded by wildfires and put on evacuation standby multiple times. Saved only by wind direction, while watching air support dropping fire retardant from the sky. I seriously worry about the overall condition of our country. Hope you are well
What did I learn from this? Government should not intervene in private affairs, which include what each individual decides to do with what rightfully belongs to him. Man, some of those cases are scary. And not because of the bad things the government is doing, but because of the level of irrationality and incompetence that runs through the veins of government officials.
Consider this: every financial transaction you have is tracked by the government and vetted by "compliance officers" at all financial institutions involved. Want to avoid this and use cash? Then you risk your cash being seized under the assumption that you MUST be doing something criminal by virtue of transacting anonymously with cash.
I really enjoy learn Liberty's short videos on various topics however, I would really like to see more videos similar to this one that focus on one topic and delve very deeply into it. I hope to see more videos like this in the future
This man's cheeky attitude is cute and all but while he stands at his pulpit with his facetious arguments America has descended into the full-blown communist hell that is the modern USSA.
@@dowskivisionmagicaloracle8593 this man is educating a room full of young people. The longest journey starts with one small step. I am thankful that he exists.
Recommended Reading The Politics Of Budget Control: Congress, The Presidency And Growth Of The Administrative State by John A. Marini The Rent-Seeking Society by Gordon Tullock America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar
1:20:20 *"History may not always repeat itself, but the faint echo of freedom and justice is getting louder and I fear I hear the rhyme of that time when collapse & war is knocking at the door once again."* *-- Christian Prepper (December 2020)*
excellent guy until he got into civil war stuff. huge blunders there when he had no answer to the simple question if Virginia citizens would all secede. other than that, brilliant guy
What about the government taking your land 4 taxes? Is it constitutional that the government takes your land that is worth say $150,000 because you owe them two or $4,000
He contradicts himself - judicial restraint is strict interpretation of the law and the Constitution. The cases he brings up are CLEARLY in violation of the Constitution and the courts should have ruled that way - that would have been exercising judicial restraint. It has nothing to do with allowing the legislature to do what it wants. Judicial activism is legislating from the bench - the 'rational basis test' he talks about is an example.
"...and reason teaches us that we shouldn't take things from people or beat them up...." In what way does reason teach this? What was Locke's reasoning?
Better late than never. I hope you're still around 7 years after your comment. The idea is that there is no way to validate robbery and assault by reason and logic. You cannot rationally justify taking by force what rightfully belongs to others. That is how reason "teaches" us that we should not take things from others nor beat them up.
Agreed. To add on to what Rambo Bones said, Locke argued that because we have such rights as individuals to not be deprived of our lives, liberty, and property, we have an obligation to respect the rights others have to the same things. If we act contrary to this, we violate the Law of Nature, which Locke believes to be the Law of Reason.
One property right I think goes underappreciated is "property held in common". People get property rights as regards an individual owning a specific physical property elusive of others. But it is also the case that a community holds property in common. For example, a community builds a community - it's traditions, infrastructures, common areas, culture, etc. Having built that up, that is their property they hold in common. Or another way, when you buy a house, you don't only consider the structure and the property it physically sits on, but you also consider the surrounding community, such as schools, for example. You are also buying into that community. As members of the community, members of that community have an expectation that that property of that community should be held inviolable by outsiders or "vandalism". For example, if the people believe that a massive Costco moving in would "vandalize" that property held in common, then they have a right in principle to not permit a property owner to "vandalize" that property held in common by selling his property to Costco to build their monstrosity. The metal leap that people tend not to grasp is that such property held in common is a more abstract form of property than a specific delineated physical property. That being, you can't show that a specific person or his physical property is being harmed - it takes a more abstract view to see that the property held in common of that community is being harmed.
Private property can be owned by multiple people, just like you can buy shares of tons of companies right now. And thus, the right to sell that property, belongs to those who own it. If the owners of a piece of land want to sell their property to Costco, they should be free to do so. On the other hand, if the owners of a piece of land do not want to sell their property to Costco, they should not be forced to do so.
I love how the first 5 minutes is an unwitting argument for anarchy being preferable to the state, then one line straw mans it, and an hour and a half is a religious expose on utopian ideals of government somehow working out.
(30:14) _the Constitution doesn't exist to empower majorities. Majorities don't need to be empowered they're already the majority ... the Constitution says liberty is a blessing and consists of several pages with limits on democracy_
He understands so much, but allows positive law to hem in his conception of our ability to address our own grievances. The Constitution is not the final say on what makes up our last resort. The Declaration of Independence is much closer to the truth of it. We cannot pretend that man's law and legal traditions can provide moral outcomes when man's law is inclined to corruption. Our right to leave the union is a moral one, not a legal one. We have more justifications than our Founders did when they left the British Empire. Pity Timothy can be so learned and lack imagination.
Judicial restraint doesn't mean the court just looks the other way, does nothing, etc. It means the courts limit their own power and judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional but likewise should NOT hesitate to strike down those that are. Judicial Activism is ruling based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.
My private property was taken by my neighbor who applied chemicals on it for over 5 years. He and his brother (the County Sheriffs detective) made public statements that I was involved in illegal drug activity, but that was not true and that could not provide any evidence to support that defamation of my character. Here is a link to show photo evidence if the personal injury that I suffered before I had no option but to stay at my home and die or flee and attempt to recover from the injury.
32:00 I would argue that property tax and building permits are a case where the government CAN provide value via building codes/construction standards, cooperation/mediation with neighbours/residents, and protection both locally via fire + police and internationally via CIA + military.
Interesting presentation! However the natural environment topic was discussed unseriously, like it was a joke. As [to many there seem to be challenging environmental problems I would like to hear a serious discussion on it.]
I agree with purikurix on this. Ofcourse I agree with Sandfur of that the example with the endangered one kind of flie and the hospital were an unbalanced decision. But I think serious poisoning of rivers ( I mean real chemical poison) or of air is a question of stately, nationally and wordly security, and the two persons raising the questions about environment in the audiance should have been answerd seriously. Well, this man has many interesting points, but he is not a Messiah...so maybe it is good that some lack of seriousness appeared in the end, to remind us of that!
Only thing I really disagreed with was his account of judicial restraint. When most prominent conservatives/libertarians have spoken about 'judicial restraint', they have not been referring to judges simply avoiding any conflict with the legislature and, instead, restraining themselves and letting even unconstitutional laws remain. Rather, they are referring to how judges ought to restrain themselves in the sense of not wandering beyond the letter of the law; that is, not making decisions based on personal beliefs (e.g., about what would be best for society) or preferences, but rather, making decisions based on what the law says, and what its passers said that the laws meant. In the latter sense, judicial restraint is very good. We do not want activist judges legislating from the bench and overriding laws to manufacture outcomes that they like.
One problem really bothers me Even Jefferson and others tried to warn us. Constitution says democracy will never work until people are allowed to be involved as independent partners in every part of the process before government can pass laws.. I personally agree aren't people stakeholders helps the natural law argument include the people in the decisions made by all government laws..
Well if we buy everything with gold we don't need a deed we don't need register the house you don't need a title and you don't need a permit to work on your property and you don't have to pay property taxes either.
I don't know why limited gov't people still think we have gov'ts to protect us from bullies, all the while complaining about how gov't is the biggest bully around and has the ability to do more harm than any other entity. Why do people still hold out hope that if we simply write a better constitution, or whatever, we can have a state that's limited and won't grow and grow?
@killerbee2k I'm actually only 16. I lied on the youtube sign up by saying I was in that demographic so I could watch every video, because a lot of videos get 'false flagged' and then if you are under 18 you can't watch them. I doubt I'm the only one who did this. I think I said I was born in 1980 lol
Hey, Read a thesis called Treason by Design by LB Bork and follow the links from there. That thesis and many more writings on the PAC website, will answer all your questions.
Love it. Well done. All legislation and fraudulent legislaters all need to be put in their place.....everything is not commerce.....common law public courts-of-record are only the county courts and enforce the law of the land.....so many words.....and missing the point as 5 or more generations have never experienced a normal state of law!!!!!!
@dachickenman because we actually have the drive and desire to keep moral rights. Most people don't, because they are afraid to tell government what to do. I just want to be left alone by aggressors...
You must have missed the oath to the bar at the Vatican!!!! God bless you. Our rights are from God, this is why every document leaves our or alters a right.
Learn liberty... I would like to bring your attention to a gentleman in Pennsylvania that filed a 42 1983 against about 15 defendants for illegally forcing Alphonse Faggiolo to pay property taxes. This is known by likely 1% of people in the U.S. You are not a tax payer for property taxes if you do not have a registered business at your home.
1:17:00 I don't understand his reasoning, If the state's citizens renounced their citizenship, do they own the land or does the federal Govt own their land and they would then be illegally in the United States.
He's speaking from the perspective as a US citizen a.k.a. Federal employee (28 USC 3002 §15(a)). US As a state citizen, such as a Californian, one may still apply for a US passport (coppermoonshinestills.com/id71.html), though it would be necessary to include a statement to correct all the US defined words (www.destinationfreedom.org). As a state citizen, one is not under the US jurisdiction (District of Columbia Organic Act 1871). From what I learned about private property ownership, if the land was not originally granted by the USA via land patent (glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx), then the property is under what California calls "Regular System". There is an administrative process for Regular System properties via UCC 1 Financing Statement to record and claim property and avoid foreclosure.
I don't agree with his opinion that we are dual citizens . And that there are two sovereigns . Evidently he swallowed the idea that the 14 amendment was somehow a legitimate incorporation doctrine. When by truth the ammendment was not ratified by voluntary consent of all of the states.
No one owns any property. Titles and deeds are all copies. Ask for the original, you can't get it so if you can't get the original then I suppose you don't own it. If owned property why would you have to pay property tax or an advalorum tax. Or why do you suppose they can just confiscate your property? How can they take your kids away? How is it Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading but Pelosi and others didn't. If the system doesn't operate they way you believe then maybe it's a different system. You can look at a cop the wrong way and you can be arrested for something stupid the cop just made up, I've been there, but won't dare to look at a politician. Why is that? Ever see police harassing anyone in wealthy communities? It's a corporation not a government search Dunn and Bradstreet company search for UNITED STATES
It's wrong for the Gov to stop Low IQ WOMEN from having as many children as they like, including children supported by taxpayers.. At the same time; … It is OK for the Gov to force MEN (all men must register within 30 days of their 18th birthday) to, at Gov discretion, give up years of their lives, and be exposed to loss of life and limb. Sounds fair,,, once you understand who is dispensable
I love how easily libertarians fall into the same arguments they spend all the rest of their time arguing against. At 40:15, he talks about us sending cheap raisins to foreign countries, which undercuts their producers and "further impoverishes the Third World". This is basic broken window economics. Bastiat teaches us that cheap goods enrich the country and allow labor to be allocated elsewhere (unless we just unload tons some years and none other years just for fun).
That would follow the broken window fallacy if it weren't the government introducing the product. Through physical force the government isn't beholden to market forces and sets a de facto price floor on a foreign market.
Sadly Iam a cs student but interesting tho. The video makes one more time clear, that if you want to get power, just jump on the train and gain some excelerated gains in followers and with them kind of shares of the whole country's power lol
No, no, no ....to follow the law of God over and above the law of man, any man, any group of men, any clergy interpretation. It was called wrongly the Protestant Reformation. Eminent domain is for airports, bridges, and it is only held by a sovereign gov. that doesn't exist...Clearfield Doctrine 1943..... Government is not to have "interests", it's has duties and obligations: to protect our life and property Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) ....prior to the fraudulent: abnormal state of law; lawless Court (Emergency Measured) Act 1914 United Kingdom...head of church....."Alabama Parrish Court"...it's the church, estate law...not what you think of as the state.
The speaker laments at how modern politics lacks philosophy, and then proceeds to critique judicial philosophy in terms of their substantive outcomes. Instead of critiquing the ideas themselves, he lists cases where the they led to undesirable decisions. If progressive jurisprudence is as bad he says it is, we can't conclude so on the grounds he provides without rejecting the importance of political philosophy. His premises support cheap shots at the opposition at the cost of supporting his argument.
I don't like this guys assumption that government officials do what they do to increase their control and power. I sincerely think that government officials are trying to do the right thing, I just think they are wrong on what that is.
Government officials should be judged for their results, and not for their intentions. In other words, whether they are evil or just ignorant, if they produce negative results to society, they should face justice.
I had an ethics conversation a while back. The thought experiment was if a mad scientist trying to cure cancer dumps a potion in the drinking supply and gets people sick should he be convicted? Yes no? Maybe take a step back. If a politician is trying to improve the city and ruins a families lives is he guilty? Where is the line at?
A good politician has to be a skilled liar. Political power attracts the worst people. Read Hayek on why the worst get on top: fee.org/resources/the-road-to-serfdom-chapter-10-why-the-worst-get-on-top/
To believe that more than 10% of our government officials are making decisions in our best interest and steadily robbing us threw their insider trading and so much more we will never know. Pelosi is just one example of how most reps are. She comes in broke yo office and now worth over 200 million and her state is beyond a wreck . So you may want to put your trust some where that doesn't greese your ass daily and destroy your children's future!!!!!!!!
Conquered. Not stole. If we go to war and I destroy you, all of your stuff now belongs to me. You gave up your right to ownership when you attacked me. It's time you get over it.
This man is incredible. I'd want him to be my lawyer.
This man's cheeky attitude is cute and all but while he stands at his pulpit with his facetious arguments America has descended into the full-blown communist hell that is the modern USSA.
8888BM
@@dowskivisionmagicaloracle8593 wonder what you think today
Love this guy, brilliant. What has happened to the rights of the people? I'm currently being told I can't live on my land in my motorhome. Even though I can't afford to live anywhere else. I'm being cited and fined $1000 by code enforcement. If I can't pay the fine, my property will be taken from me. I guess I don't have the right to basic survival, or to enjoy the use of property that is the fruit of my labors. I need help. Thank you
I hope ur doing well
@@Themancom thank you for your thoughts. I wish you the same. Good luck partner
@@antonlords6 its been two years, what has changed, were you kicked out or did everything work out?
@@damianwilson2255 Thank you for your question. It's been interesting and for the most part uneventful. I've not been harassed by the government during the pandemic. The population of the small economically depressed area I live in has doubled in just over one year. Last summer I surrounded by wildfires and put on evacuation standby multiple times. Saved only by wind direction, while watching air support dropping fire retardant from the sky. I seriously worry about the overall condition of our country.
Hope you are well
If all lawyers were like this guy, the world would be a much better place.
Thats close. If all judges were like this guy......
Imagine if we could do even better turn out all the politicians like him. Wishful thinking that’s all.
there would be no country if all lawyers would be like him and therefore also no law and no lawyers
What did I learn from this?
Government should not intervene in private affairs, which include what each individual decides to do with what rightfully belongs to him.
Man, some of those cases are scary. And not because of the bad things the government is doing, but because of the level of irrationality and incompetence that runs through the veins of government officials.
Consider this: every financial transaction you have is tracked by the government and vetted by "compliance officers" at all financial institutions involved. Want to avoid this and use cash? Then you risk your cash being seized under the assumption that you MUST be doing something criminal by virtue of transacting anonymously with cash.
I really enjoy learn Liberty's short videos on various topics however, I would really like to see more videos similar to this one that focus on one topic and delve very deeply into it. I hope to see more videos like this in the future
I get angry just halfway through. i hate the laws we have...we have to do something. God bless this man
GREAT speaker! Highly knowledgeable and entertaining. Well done.
This man's cheeky attitude is cute and all but while he stands at his pulpit with his facetious arguments America has descended into the full-blown communist hell that is the modern USSA.
@@dowskivisionmagicaloracle8593 this man is educating a room full of young people. The longest journey starts with one small step. I am thankful that he exists.
Recommended Reading
The Politics Of Budget Control: Congress, The Presidency And Growth Of The Administrative State by John A. Marini
The Rent-Seeking Society by Gordon Tullock
America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar
This is a great lecture and I would particularly draw your attention to what he says at about 30:00+ about liberty and democracy
I agree!
This is the standard that all teachers should be measured. Funny, works in that field, knows the material, makes you WANT to pay attention.
The lecture that you will NEVER hear in any school or university. EVER.
1:20:20
*"History may not always repeat itself, but the faint echo of freedom and justice is getting louder and I fear I hear the rhyme of that time when collapse & war is knocking at the door once again."*
*-- Christian Prepper (December 2020)*
What a well educated,interesting and articulate speaker,that can draw upon so much complex law and court history!
excellent guy until he got into civil war stuff. huge blunders there when he had no answer to the simple question if Virginia citizens would all secede. other than that, brilliant guy
This is depressing but beautifully presented and well stated. I hope to see much more from this gentleman.
What about the government taking your land 4 taxes? Is it constitutional that the government takes your land that is worth say $150,000 because you owe them two or $4,000
You blew my socks away! Great work.
Does any of this apply to losing a property for not paying property taxes?
I would love to see this guy debate Tom Woods on nulification
He contradicts himself - judicial restraint is strict interpretation of the law and the Constitution. The cases he brings up are CLEARLY in violation of the Constitution and the courts should have ruled that way - that would have been exercising judicial restraint. It has nothing to do with allowing the legislature to do what it wants. Judicial activism is legislating from the bench - the 'rational basis test' he talks about is an example.
Tick: a blood-sucking insect. Poly: many. Politicians: many blood-sucking insects.
Politickcian
"...and reason teaches us that we shouldn't take things from people or beat them up...." In what way does reason teach this? What was Locke's reasoning?
Better late than never. I hope you're still around 7 years after your comment.
The idea is that there is no way to validate robbery and assault by reason and logic. You cannot rationally justify taking by force what rightfully belongs to others.
That is how reason "teaches" us that we should not take things from others nor beat them up.
Agreed. To add on to what Rambo Bones said, Locke argued that because we have such rights as individuals to not be deprived of our lives, liberty, and property, we have an obligation to respect the rights others have to the same things. If we act contrary to this, we violate the Law of Nature, which Locke believes to be the Law of Reason.
One property right I think goes underappreciated is "property held in common". People get property rights as regards an individual owning a specific physical property elusive of others. But it is also the case that a community holds property in common. For example, a community builds a community - it's traditions, infrastructures, common areas, culture, etc. Having built that up, that is their property they hold in common. Or another way, when you buy a house, you don't only consider the structure and the property it physically sits on, but you also consider the surrounding community, such as schools, for example. You are also buying into that community. As members of the community, members of that community have an expectation that that property of that community should be held inviolable by outsiders or "vandalism". For example, if the people believe that a massive Costco moving in would "vandalize" that property held in common, then they have a right in principle to not permit a property owner to "vandalize" that property held in common by selling his property to Costco to build their monstrosity. The metal leap that people tend not to grasp is that such property held in common is a more abstract form of property than a specific delineated physical property. That being, you can't show that a specific person or his physical property is being harmed - it takes a more abstract view to see that the property held in common of that community is being harmed.
Private property can be owned by multiple people, just like you can buy shares of tons of companies right now.
And thus, the right to sell that property, belongs to those who own it.
If the owners of a piece of land want to sell their property to Costco, they should be free to do so.
On the other hand, if the owners of a piece of land do not want to sell their property to Costco, they should not be forced to do so.
This should be mandatory for freshman high school civics
Anyone know where I can find more videos about this? Whether or not they are as fun as this guy...
Any advice on fighting city hall in Orange, CA.?
Thanks in advance
I love how the first 5 minutes is an unwitting argument for anarchy being preferable to the state, then one line straw mans it, and an hour and a half is a religious expose on utopian ideals of government somehow working out.
(30:14) _the Constitution doesn't exist to empower majorities. Majorities don't need to be empowered they're already the majority ... the Constitution says liberty is a blessing and consists of several pages with limits on democracy_
He understands so much, but allows positive law to hem in his conception of our ability to address our own grievances. The Constitution is not the final say on what makes up our last resort. The Declaration of Independence is much closer to the truth of it. We cannot pretend that man's law and legal traditions can provide moral outcomes when man's law is inclined to corruption. Our right to leave the union is a moral one, not a legal one. We have more justifications than our Founders did when they left the British Empire.
Pity Timothy can be so learned and lack imagination.
Judicial restraint doesn't mean the court just looks the other way, does nothing, etc. It means the courts limit their own power and judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional but likewise should NOT hesitate to strike down those that are.
Judicial Activism is ruling based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.
My private property was taken by my neighbor who applied chemicals on it for over 5 years. He and his brother (the County Sheriffs detective) made public statements that I was involved in illegal drug activity, but that was not true and that could not provide any evidence to support that defamation of my character. Here is a link to show photo evidence if the personal injury that I suffered before I had no option but to stay at my home and die or flee and attempt to recover from the injury.
32:00 I would argue that property tax and building permits are a case where the government CAN provide value via building codes/construction standards, cooperation/mediation with neighbours/residents, and protection both locally via fire + police and internationally via CIA + military.
Value to who? The owner or the government? Who decides "value"? Your opinion makes sense with that commie icon. Maybe move to China?
1h20 in the speech..that really hits now a days
Interesting presentation! However the natural environment topic was discussed unseriously, like it was a joke. As [to many there seem to be challenging environmental problems I would like to hear a serious discussion on it.]
What do you mean?
I agree with purikurix on this. Ofcourse I agree with Sandfur of that the example with the endangered one kind of flie and the hospital were an unbalanced decision. But I think serious poisoning of rivers ( I mean real chemical poison) or of air is a question of stately, nationally and wordly security, and the two persons raising the questions about environment in the audiance should have been answerd seriously. Well, this man has many interesting points, but he is not a Messiah...so maybe it is good that some lack of seriousness appeared in the end, to remind us of that!
Very educational, thank you
Wow you should come to Brownsville tx. I have a case like this county as far have private enterprise for each area. Kido
This guy is so awesome
I just love how we're all condemned to federal tyranny behind votes forever in this man's view..... Smh
These court cases he mentions are states rights not federal. Segregation, etc.
How can you know the law of the land (foreign law to all lawyers); and not know about the lawless monopoly on the courts.
Only thing I really disagreed with was his account of judicial restraint. When most prominent conservatives/libertarians have spoken about 'judicial restraint', they have not been referring to judges simply avoiding any conflict with the legislature and, instead, restraining themselves and letting even unconstitutional laws remain. Rather, they are referring to how judges ought to restrain themselves in the sense of not wandering beyond the letter of the law; that is, not making decisions based on personal beliefs (e.g., about what would be best for society) or preferences, but rather, making decisions based on what the law says, and what its passers said that the laws meant. In the latter sense, judicial restraint is very good. We do not want activist judges legislating from the bench and overriding laws to manufacture outcomes that they like.
Justice Brandice copied Jefferson nearly verbatim concerning the rights of property, in relation to Jefferson's words of the constitution.
I call my cat, Cato as well. And great speaker
@ThatGuyCalledPhillip Well, by that logic all high school defeats the purpose of liberty, and it doesn't, because you still can home-school your kids.
I am a student. Is there a way to download these speeches for an iPod?
Wow… All that and a not a single mention of the compact theory, state nullification or even the 10th Amendment?
Property owners need to defend their land.
You will not have any property by 2030 - guess you have not heard of something.
@@joebyu they can take it over my dead body
@@GIboy1990 Agenda 2030, it's messed up.
@@joebyuwe haven't truly "owned" land since 1871.
One problem really bothers me Even Jefferson and others tried to warn us. Constitution says democracy will never work until people are allowed to be involved as independent partners in every part of the process before government can pass laws.. I personally agree aren't people stakeholders helps the natural law argument include the people in the decisions made by all government laws..
Well if we buy everything with gold we don't need a deed we don't need register the house you don't need a title and you don't need a permit to work on your property and you don't have to pay property taxes either.
How Does an indivisual obtain property with social conflict & competition
Topic didn't interest me, but I couldn't stop listening. WTF. Marvolous speaker.
Competition of courts HAS to return.
I don't know why limited gov't people still think we have gov'ts to protect us from bullies, all the while complaining about how gov't is the biggest bully around and has the ability to do more harm than any other entity. Why do people still hold out hope that if we simply write a better constitution, or whatever, we can have a state that's limited and won't grow and grow?
@keeban assumption? The guy cited case after case and actual quotes... That's hardly assumption.
In order for someone's private interests to become meaningful they must make them public!
We will own nothing and be happy... sad... happy is not allowed
@killerbee2k I'm actually only 16. I lied on the youtube sign up by saying I was in that demographic so I could watch every video, because a lot of videos get 'false flagged' and then if you are under 18 you can't watch them. I doubt I'm the only one who did this. I think I said I was born in 1980 lol
Hey, Read a thesis called Treason by Design by LB Bork and follow the links from there. That thesis and many more writings on the PAC website, will answer all your questions.
This guy reminds me of the leader of Mr Burns' 10 High Priced Lawyers from the Simpsons.
Seems right on some stuff.... Would love to see Tom Woods shatter this man's world in a debate though
44:13
He answers questions shortly after you stopped assuming the purpose your posted 44::::, stellar arguments
@@LuckySafeHaven huh?
I just posted a timestamp as a reminder where I was at in the video lol
Love it. Well done. All legislation and fraudulent legislaters all need to be put in their place.....everything is not commerce.....common law public courts-of-record are only the county courts and enforce the law of the land.....so many words.....and missing the point as 5 or more generations have never experienced a normal state of law!!!!!!
Calhoun and not Jackson is the evil master?
Justice Hugo Black, former Senator and former(?) Clan member, appointed by FDR was all about those internment camps.
@dachickenman because we actually have the drive and desire to keep moral rights. Most people don't, because they are afraid to tell government what to do. I just want to be left alone by aggressors...
You must have missed the oath to the bar at the Vatican!!!!
God bless you.
Our rights are from God, this is why every document leaves our or alters a right.
Learn liberty... I would like to bring your attention to a gentleman in Pennsylvania that filed a 42 1983 against about 15 defendants for illegally forcing Alphonse Faggiolo to pay property taxes.
This is known by likely 1% of people in the U.S.
You are not a tax payer for property taxes if you do not have a registered business at your home.
1:17:00 I don't understand his reasoning, If the state's citizens renounced their citizenship, do they own the land or does the federal Govt own their land and they would then be illegally in the United States.
He's speaking from the perspective as a US citizen a.k.a. Federal employee (28 USC 3002 §15(a)). US As a state citizen, such as a Californian, one may still apply for a US passport (coppermoonshinestills.com/id71.html), though it would be necessary to include a statement to correct all the US defined words (www.destinationfreedom.org). As a state citizen, one is not under the US jurisdiction (District of Columbia Organic Act 1871).
From what I learned about private property ownership, if the land was not originally granted by the USA via land patent (glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx), then the property is under what California calls "Regular System". There is an administrative process for Regular System properties via UCC 1 Financing Statement to record and claim property and avoid foreclosure.
I don't agree with his opinion that we are dual citizens . And that there are two sovereigns . Evidently he swallowed the idea that the 14 amendment was somehow a legitimate incorporation doctrine. When by truth the ammendment was not ratified by voluntary consent of all of the states.
Not true. 100 owner ocs in La Verne were taken to build the 210.
Exactly where in the Constitution does the word Democracy appear? You did say "The Constitution consists of several pages of limits on Democracy"
No one owns any property. Titles and deeds are all copies. Ask for the original, you can't get it so if you can't get the original then I suppose you don't own it. If owned property why would you have to pay property tax or an advalorum tax. Or why do you suppose they can just confiscate your property? How can they take your kids away? How is it Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading but Pelosi and others didn't. If the system doesn't operate they way you believe then maybe it's a different system. You can look at a cop the wrong way and you can be arrested for something stupid the cop just made up, I've been there, but won't dare to look at a politician. Why is that? Ever see police harassing anyone in wealthy communities? It's a corporation not a government search Dunn and Bradstreet company search for UNITED STATES
youtube needs a post-process to remove 60hz hum
It's called Unam Sanctum.
70k views in 10 years? The world is doomed.
Thanks
Great lect! addressed to: Truth
5 on 1-5 Fr33dom Index *
It's wrong for the Gov to stop Low IQ WOMEN from having as many children as they like, including children supported by taxpayers..
At the same time; … It is OK for the Gov to force MEN (all men must register within 30 days of their 18th birthday) to, at Gov discretion, give up years of their lives, and be exposed to loss of life and limb. Sounds fair,,, once you understand who is dispensable
Male Genital Mutilation = Circumcision
Female Circumcision = Female Genital Mutilation.
I love how easily libertarians fall into the same arguments they spend all the rest of their time arguing against. At 40:15, he talks about us sending cheap raisins to foreign countries, which undercuts their producers and "further impoverishes the Third World". This is basic broken window economics.
Bastiat teaches us that cheap goods enrich the country and allow labor to be allocated elsewhere (unless we just unload tons some years and none other years just for fun).
That would follow the broken window fallacy if it weren't the government introducing the product. Through physical force the government isn't beholden to market forces and sets a de facto price floor on a foreign market.
So solid, but a dunce on nullification.
Sadly Iam a cs student but interesting tho.
The video makes one more time clear, that if you want to get power, just jump on the train and gain some excelerated gains in followers and with them kind of shares of the whole country's power lol
If they can take it away it's not a right
Don't live vicariously! Advice for myself or Anybody really.
I liked this video, however, there is no justified use of government power. The social contract is nothing more than virtual representation.
I’m thinking the government is the bully..
Adam Smith x landlords yep
When Cato was the good guys.
This guy spends all day reading books...
Shows how much the sheep don't care. This is 19 yrs old with 40k veiws.
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Lives Matter.
Outlaw the feudal system.
This guy is too negative. But the talk was mesmerizing.
Calhoun was not evil, sad to see such an intellectual make such ignorant comments.
I can defuse Everything he said in the first 12 minutes, easily, and in more than one way
No, no, no ....to follow the law of God over and above the law of man, any man, any group of men, any clergy interpretation. It was called wrongly the Protestant Reformation.
Eminent domain is for airports, bridges, and it is only held by a sovereign gov. that doesn't exist...Clearfield Doctrine 1943..... Government is not to have "interests", it's has duties and obligations: to protect our life and property Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) ....prior to the fraudulent: abnormal state of law; lawless Court (Emergency Measured) Act 1914 United Kingdom...head of church....."Alabama Parrish Court"...it's the church, estate law...not what you think of as the state.
BEAUTIFULLY SAID! Why don't you become the President? It wouldn't be to hard to replace trump.
The speaker laments at how modern politics lacks philosophy, and then proceeds to critique judicial philosophy in terms of their substantive outcomes. Instead of critiquing the ideas themselves, he lists cases where the they led to undesirable decisions.
If progressive jurisprudence is as bad he says it is, we can't conclude so on the grounds he provides without rejecting the importance of political philosophy. His premises support cheap shots at the opposition at the cost of supporting his argument.
Laments lol
I don't like this guys assumption that government officials do what they do to increase their control and power. I sincerely think that government officials are trying to do the right thing, I just think they are wrong on what that is.
Government officials should be judged for their results, and not for their intentions. In other words, whether they are evil or just ignorant, if they produce negative results to society, they should face justice.
I had an ethics conversation a while back. The thought experiment was if a mad scientist trying to cure cancer dumps a potion in the drinking supply and gets people sick should he be convicted? Yes no? Maybe take a step back. If a politician is trying to improve the city and ruins a families lives is he guilty?
Where is the line at?
A good politician has to be a skilled liar. Political power attracts the worst people. Read Hayek on why the worst get on top: fee.org/resources/the-road-to-serfdom-chapter-10-why-the-worst-get-on-top/
To believe that more than 10% of our government officials are making decisions in our best interest and steadily robbing us threw their insider trading and so much more we will never know. Pelosi is just one example of how most reps are. She comes in broke yo office and now worth over 200 million and her state is beyond a wreck . So you may want to put your trust some where that doesn't greese your ass daily and destroy your children's future!!!!!!!!
@@williamhodge8095 My outlook has changed over the last ten years, and I agree with you now.
Nothing like a fringe right hack telling us about his version of the law..
He's not fringe. He's the majority. You'll find out soon enough 😊
@@gridtac2911 😆😆😆😆
Golly gee wizz I hope we don't have to give back all the land we rightfully stole from the Indians.
Conquered. Not stole. If we go to war and I destroy you, all of your stuff now belongs to me. You gave up your right to ownership when you attacked me. It's time you get over it.