constitutional class

[kblazk]

imported post

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622&q=constitution&total=5465&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I recommend ANYONE that cares about their civil liberties watch this. This video of a class that does a VERY good job at going through the consitution and has some VERY good history with it too.

VERY GOOD STUFF

Let me know what you think...

 

[Particle]

imported post

I just finished the first one. This is depressing.

 

[Legba]

imported post

Should have called it "Libertarianism for Dummies." I'd have dropped the class before the 1st session was done. JMO.

-ljp

 

[Cue-Ball]

imported post

I'm about halfway through the first episode and this is really good. It's funny how such a simple concept as property rights is so misconstrued and misunderstood by today's society.

One gripe to pick with the first episode: The teacher says that he has a right to burn his house down. This is not true. He has a right to *destroy* his own home, but not necessarily to burn it. The reason? The air that we breathe is community property. He doesn't have the right to unnecessarily and deliberately ruin the air that belongs to his neighbors.

But, that's really just semantics.

Here's another video that sums up a lot of this in a very simple, clear, straightforward way:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7286295385089068110&q=liberty+property

 

[kblazk]

imported post

you get to the part where he says that before he dies he wants to go to FDR's grave and piss on it?

 

[Particle]

imported post

I watched the last six of them yesterday. This is probably the most important seven hours you can spend in the pursuit of being a better American.

 

[freedom1776]

imported post

Particle wrote:

I watched the last six of them yesterday. This is probably the most important seven hours you can spend in the pursuit of being a better American.

I agree, kids should be forced to watch this in schools everywhere....

 

[LoveMyCountry]

imported post

freedom1776 wrote:

Particle wrote:

I watched the last six of them yesterday. This is probably the most important seven hours you can spend in the pursuit of being a better American.

I agree, kids should be forced to watch this in schools everywhere....

You want to force freedom on people?

LoveMyCountry

 

[openryan]

imported post

I am still watching the first, almost halfway through, I also found the property ownership thing interesting, I am intrigued by this idea of a lodial(sp) title.

I guess I need to learn a bit more on property.

I had a lecturer last year in school who was almost this guy to a 'T' -- very interesting person, good ideas.

I don't know what I will think of the other six, but I really find it interesting so far...

 

[Brandon]

imported post

kblazk wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622&q=constitution&total=5465&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I recommend ANYONE that cares about their civil liberties watch this. This video of a class that does a VERY good job at going through the consitution and has some VERY good history with it too.

VERY GOOD STUFF

Let me know what you think...

I was lucky enough to take Michael's class in March 2005 in Marietta, GA when he was coming through. It was quite the eye opener.

 

[openryan]

imported post

Finished the 1st video, really enjoyed it, jogged my memory on a lot of things, and opened my eyes to some new issues.

Does anyone know if he goes more in-depth on the topic of firearms, and if so -- what video?

 

[Cue-Ball]

imported post

I am still watching the first, almost halfway through, I also found the property ownership thing interesting, I am intrigued by this idea of a lodial(sp) title.

Not sure if this helps, but it's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

Does anyone know if he goes more in-depth on the topic of firearms, and if so -- what video?

I've watched the first four and so far he hasn't really gone too in-depth on the Second Amendment. It's been mentioned a lot, and he references the use of guns to defend property rights, but that's it so far.

This guy also has a book and a 12-hour DVD set that is supposedly much more in depth. Those might have more information. The videos are so good, I'm going to buy the book. Seems like $25 well spent.

 

[freedom1776]

imported post

Well one of the video's he goes on about he got pulled over for some reason and the cops were going to call a tow truck on his car and he asked the cop why his property was going to be confinscated without a fair trial, (in the bill of rights) then he asked the officer if he read the constitution and took an oath to uphold it and he says the cop got all flustered and ran to his car and left! I suppose you could apply that if they tried to take your firearm or something without a fair trial.

 

[unrequited]

imported post

Brandon wrote:

kblazk wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622&q=constitution&total=5465&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I recommend ANYONE that cares about their civil liberties watch this. This video of a class that does a VERY good job at going through the consitution and has some VERY good history with it too.

VERY GOOD STUFF

Let me know what you think...

I was lucky enough to take Michael's class in March 2005 in Marietta, GA when he was coming through. It was quite the eye opener.

Interesting... how much was it?

 

[nickerj1]

imported post

I watched the first part of the video. He has some major contradictions.

Idea 1:
He clearly says that the only state you can get an allodial title in is Texas. This means that each respective state owns the physical land you think you own in all the other states. It's why we pay land taxes to the state.

Idea 2:
Comparison of Rights versus privileges
The owner of the property has the right to do what they want with it. If you don't own the property you don't have a right to it. You could get a privilege to do whatever you want to it at the discretion of the owner. The owner can discriminate however they please on distributing privileges because they have a right to their property.

Idea 3:
You need an Manufacturer's Statement of Origin in order to completely own your vehicle. If the state has it, then the state technically owns a portion of your vehicle. He goes on to say this is why you have to register your vehicle and get a driver's license. Because you don't actually own your vehicle. In fact, if you have your MSO you never have to register your vehicle and you should tell a cop this if you're pulled over.


Now, I don't know about any of you, but I get a registration and driver's license so I can drive on the state's roads (Idea 1, states' own all the land) because the state can discriminate however they wish (Idea 2). The state's choose to discriminate on driving age and proficiency (to get a driver's license) and record of your vehicle (registration).


I'm guessing in the remaining parts he's going to say the right to property is only overruled by the privileges granted by the constitution. Meaning that state's can control their land/property however they wish, as long as they grant the privileges as defined in the Constitution. One of which is to bear arms.

 

[Cue-Ball]

imported post

If we look back to the time when this country was young, there was no age limit or license requirement to use a horse or buggy on the roads, the roads were not funded by public money, and private property was the law of the land.

Given those facts, I think there are a few things at play here, the main one being the freedom to travel. I would argue that the government has no right to restrict your travel so long as you don't infringe on anyones life, liberty, or property. Vehicle and driver licensing is contrary to these principles. I think the concept of a driver's license makes our founding fathers turn over in their graves.

 

[TC-TX]

imported post

nickerj1 wrote:

I'm guessing in the remaining parts he's going to say the right to property is only overruled by the privileges granted by the constitution. Meaning that state's can control their land/property however they wish, as long as they grant the privileges as defined in the Constitution. One of which is to bear arms.

The U.S. Constitution does NOT grant privileges or rights. It PROTECTS them.

Rights are conferred by our Creator. They are inalienable.

 

[JohnKelly]

imported post

"The U.S. Constitution does NOT grant privileges or rights. It PROTECTS them.
Rights are conferred by our Creator. They are inalienable."

Absolutely correct; the distinction is often lost but is extremely important.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

JohnKelly wrote:

"The U.S. Constitution does NOT grant privileges or rights. It PROTECTS them.
Rights are conferred by our Creator. They are inalienable."

Absolutely correct; the distinction is often lost but is extremely important.

Well not quite. The Constitution has no say whatsoever about rights at all.

However, the Bill of Rights does. Still the Bill of Rights protects unalienable rights.. not privileges. There is a world of difference between a right and a privilege and we are concerned here with rights.

Privileges, along with power and authority,are granted by the people to government in order for it to carry out its charter as instituted by the people. Government has not rights.. we have all of the rights. AND we have everything else not specifically allowed to the government.

Please never confuse rights with privileges.

 

[freedom1776]

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

If we look back to the time when this country was young, there was no age limit or license requirement to use a horse or buggy on the roads, the roads were not funded by public money, and private property was the law of the land.

today you still don't need to be of certain age or have a dl to operate a horse and buggy