# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment*
*Private Property:*

*Private Property is defined as exclusive ownership of things by an individual. The owner of the property has the right to do whatever he pleases with his own property as long as he does not violate the property of another. Therefore, the owner does not need to obtain anyone’s permission to use his own property, but everyone else must obtain his voluntary permission to use it.

The rightful owner of a property is either the first user of it, or the recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest, or sale.* 

*Thus, Liberty is defined as the right to do with one's own property as the one pleases, as long as he does not violate the property of another. And Justice is non-violation of Private property, with the implied right to use equal force to offset the aggression of another against one's property.  

Therefore, both Justice and Liberty are meaningless and do not exist without Private Property.*

*Furthermore, 

since one can rightly govern or control only the things he owns, 

and since the government does not own individuals nor their property,

and since no individual has the right to govern or control the property of his neighbor, no individual can delegate such authority to his government, 

and since the only legitimate authority that public representative government can rightly have is expressly delegated to it by the individuals governed, 

and no one can delegate an authority he does not have;

Therefore, public representative government can have no right to govern or control the private property of any individual against his will, and any such control is unjust by definition and constitutes a violation of private property, which violation is the definition of evil.*
*
Therefore, 

The Fundamental Law of the Country is that Private property shall not be violated. 

The owner of the property can do whatever he wants with his property as long as he does not violate the property of another.

All other public laws pertaining to private property are immoral and unjust by definition, and are hereby and henceforth abolished.*

*
Public Property:*

*Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership. 
**
Public representative government shall make no law, except with regards to public property in the jurisdiction of such government.* *And all such laws should be:* 
*
a) agreed upon by the majority of citizens in the jurisdiction, and* 
*b) apply to all citizens equally, since all have equal claim of ownership upon it, and* 
*c) must not violate the property or natural, unalienable rights of any individual.* *
**A specific public property shall be managed by the lowest level of government that can possibly do so. 
*

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Explanation:*

(As a side note, we will point out that anti-nuisance laws can still exist in a just society under this amendment, because no one has the right to violate or pollute the property of another, be that property private or public. So, one cannot rightly build, say, a pig farm next to your house, and thus, without your consent, pollute your air with the smell or noise of pigs; neither has anyone the right to project offensive sounds or images upon your property, nor can they project that upon public property if the majority of the users of the public property find it offensive. So property rights, or in other words, non-aggression/non-violation principle, takes good care of anti-nuisance enforcement.)

The Private Property section of this amendment is equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle, because "non-violation" is "non-aggression," which is the most Fundamental Principle of Liberty. 

This one amendment, if implemented, will end government as we know it, and establish a government based on true principles of liberty.

This would abolish hundreds of thousands of Federal, State and local laws governing private property, and replaced them with One Law!

The only question the jury will now have to answer will be: Has private property been violated, and what the appropriate reparation should be?


Because
Private Property IS Liberty.

This, among other things, will have the effect of repealing all licensing laws pertaining to private property. What a boon would that be to the economy and liberty! 

Imagine what this will do for instance to health care! It will repeal all licensing requirements, any one could be a doctor, even without a degree, healthcare prices would become dirt cheep, without sacrificing any quality, because free market would still operate (even better than before)! That would be the true healthcare reform.

Similar improvements would happen across the board, where government interference through licensing requirements stifled free market competition and drove up prices, while reducing quality.

This one amendment would literally repeal hundreds of thousands of laws, and end hundreds of government agencies all over the country. I think I like it! I like it a lot!

=====================================
This amendment is a part of 7 amendments that were designed to bring the Constitution into harmony with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot exist:
*Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)* The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment Honest Money Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM) Nullification - Constitutional Amendment  Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Congratulations for independent thought.  However, consider this young padawan.

SCOTUS has held Congress can determine what the words in the Constitution mean.  Your definition of property and a Congressional definition of  property likely won't jive.

Is appointing super human overlords immune to corruption the answer or is the answer empowering individuals to vote with their feet or wallets every single day?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> SCOTUS has held Congress can determine what the words in the Constitution mean.  Your definition of property and a Congressional definition of  property likely won't jive.


That's why we have vertical checks and balances of State and Jury nullification. When this is understood, the only important definition of the words will be the people's definition.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> That's why we have vertical checks and balances of State and Jury nullification. When this is understood, the only important definition of the words will be the people's definition.


So what is your plan to achieve "When this is understood"?

By implying people are stupid and they do not understand are you suggesting people should be forced to acquire intelligence implants?

Since people have been electing the best representation free people can elect what makes you think the peoples definition is not being implemented now?

Since the United States has over 230 years of history can you cite how the vertical checks and balances you refer to have been effective in United States history?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So what is your plan to achieve "When this is understood"?


Education! "The truth shall make you free!"

*State nullification:*
YouTube - Thomas E Woods - Principles of 98

*Jury nullification:*
http://www.freedom-central.net/trialbyjury.html
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

--Thomas Jefferson.




> By implying people are stupid and they do not understand are you suggesting people should be forced to acquire intelligence implants?


People are not stupid, they were just deceived. 




> Since people have been electing the best representation free people can elect what makes you think the peoples definition is not being implemented now?


Are you joking? "best representation free people can elect"? Really? How about "best representation banksters could buy?" 

But if people are truly informed, they will not be as easily manipulated and will vote very differently!




> Since the United States has over 230 years of history can you cite how the vertical checks and balances you refer to have been effective in United States history?


Sure.

*Tom Woods: "Nullification - Jefferson's Solution"*
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=124520

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Education! "The truth shall make you free!"


How many people need educated?

How many people are you contacting a day?

How are you contacting them?

How do you educate them once you have contacted them?

How much time does education take on average per person?

How do you know when you have successfully educated someone?

Does education guarantee people will change their beliefs?

Does education guarantee people will believe in liberty?

How long will it take to implement your plan (that doesn't appear to exist) to educate people?




> People are not stupid, they were just deceived.


If you can be deceived are you stupid?  

People are free from any personal responsibility for the beliefs they act on?




> Are you joking? "best representation free people can elect"?


Your post is lacking any evidence or citations to back up your claim free people have not elected their representatives.

Your post is also lacking any evidence or citations to back up your claim the majority vote of the people is or can be wrong.




> Really? How about "best representation banksters could buy?"


So because Ron Paul was on the ballot in 2007-2008 it is the bankters fault more people did not vote for Ron Paul?




> But if people are truly informed, they will not be as easily manipulated and will vote very differently!


I am confused.  In your last sentence you suggested it is the fault of banksters now you suggest something different:

So because Ron Paul was on the ballot in 2007-2008 more people did not vote for Ron Paul because most people are stupid and easily manipulated?




> Sure.


Citation?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> How many people need educated?


At least 10%, the rest will follow.

How many people are you contacting a day?
Had 77 views on this thread today .

How are you contacting them?
blog

How do you educate them once you have contacted them?
With posts like this.

How much time does education take on average per person?
Hard to say.

How do you know when you have successfully educated someone?
When they agree with me.

Does education guarantee people will change their beliefs?
No.

Does education guarantee people will believe in liberty?
No. But it makes it MUCH more likely!


How long will it take to implement your plan (that doesn't appear to exist) to educate people?
It depends on people like you.

If you can be deceived are you stupid? 
Not necessarily. You may simply have bad information. We are fixing it here .

People are free from any personal responsibility for the beliefs they act on?
O, they are responsible in proportion to the knowledge they have.


Your post is lacking any evidence or citations to back up your claim free people have not elected their representatives.
Case in point. Bailouts: 97% of incoming communications to Congress opposed it. They passed it anyway! Who is being represented here? How's that for evidence?

Your post is also lacking any evidence or citations to back up your claim the majority vote of the people is or can be wrong.
They voted for Obama and Bush! That was wrong! (Sorry to say I voted for Bush twice!)


So because Ron Paul was on the ballot in 2007-2008 it is the bankters fault more people did not vote for Ron Paul?
They locked him out of debates, didn't they? They brainwashed the population from public school on to believe in big government and welfare from cradle to grave and preemptive war! Where is the message of limited government = freedom in our schools?!

"But if people are truly informed, they will not be as easily manipulated and will vote very differently!"
I am confused. In your last sentence you suggested it is the fault of banksters now you suggest something different:
The banksters misinformed and confused the people for generations. 

So because Ron Paul was on the ballot in 2007-2008 more people did not vote for Ron Paul because most people are stupid and easily manipulated?
Stupid? No. Manipulated and misinformed. Yes! Hence: "The truth will set you free!"

Citation?
*Tom Woods: "Nullification - Jefferson's Solution"*
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=124520

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> At least 10%, the rest will follow.


How many people is that exactly?  10% of what?  What evidence do you have the rest will follow?  Ron Paul polled at 10% and the rest did not follow.  Medina polled at 10% and the rest did not follow.  Kokesh polled at 10% and the rest did not follow.




> How many people are you contacting a day?
> Had 77 views on this thread today .
> 
> How are you contacting them?
> blog


How many people have you contacted per day on average over the past year?  

Do you have any statistics on views?
What percentage of those views have read 1,2,3,..., all posts in a thread or an entire blog?
How many people were educated?
How were they educated?
How much education did they receive?




> How do you educate them once you have contacted them?
> With posts like this.


What statistics or evidence do you have to illustrate this thread has educated anyone?




> How much time does education take on average per person?
> Hard to say.


You have absolutely no idea?




> How do you know when you have successfully educated someone?
> When they agree with me.


Does that make everyone who doesn't agree with you uneducated?
Does that mean someone who does not vote identically to you is uneducated?
What statistics do you have to indicate people who do not agree or vote identically wish to be educated by you? 





> Does education guarantee people will change their beliefs?
> No.


If education does not guarantee people will change their beliefs why do you assume or believe education will convince people to agree with you?




> Does education guarantee people will believe in liberty?
> No. But it makes it MUCH more likely!


How much more likely exactly?




> How long will it take to implement your plan (that doesn't appear to exist) to educate people?
> It depends on people like you.


Why does your plan for individual liberty depend on other people?   No one can be free without depending on other people?




> If you can be deceived are you stupid? 
> Not necessarily. You may simply have bad information. We are fixing it here .


If people believe bad information are they stupid for not being able to discern good information from bad information?




> People are free from any personal responsibility for the beliefs they act on?
> O, they are responsible in proportion to the knowledge they have.


How are they responsible?  Please provide an example of justice proportioned by knowledge so I can have the right information.




> Your post is lacking any evidence or citations to back up your claim free people have not elected their representatives.
> Case in point. Bailouts: 97% of incoming communications to Congress opposed it. They passed it anyway! Who is being represented here? How's that for evidence?


Under the illusion of a republic is every issue subject to popular vote?
If under the illusion of a republic every issue is not subject to popular vote why would it matter what % of incomming communications to Congress is?
Are you suggesting people would be better off with more democracy where they can vote on every issue to insure the will of the people?




> Your post is also lacking any evidence or citations to back up your claim the majority vote of the people is or can be wrong.
> They voted for Obama and Bush! That was wrong! (Sorry to say I voted for Bush twice!)


Why is it wrong?
Was it wrong at the time votes were cast?




> So because Ron Paul was on the ballot in 2007-2008 it is the bankters fault more people did not vote for Ron Paul?
> They locked him out of debates, didn't they? They brainwashed the population from public school on to believe in big government and welfare from cradle to grave and preemptive war! Where is the message of limited government = freedom in our schools?!


Did they?
How do you brainwash someone?  Provide an example of how I could brainwash you?
Don't the best representation free people can elect determine or appoint the people who determine the curriculum of public schools?




> "But if people are truly informed, they will not be as easily manipulated and will vote very differently!"
> I am confused. In your last sentence you suggested it is the fault of banksters now you suggest something different:
> The banksters misinformed and confused the people for generations.


How did they misinform people?
Has anyone been brought to justice for fraud?
Is it even possible to misinform someone?
Is it possible to misinform someone when people have a natural right to say or believe whatever they choose?




> So because Ron Paul was on the ballot in 2007-2008 more people did not vote for Ron Paul because most people are stupid and easily manipulated?
> Stupid? No. Manipulated and misinformed. Yes! Hence: "The truth will set you free!"


How do you discern truth?
Provide an example of how one can discern whether or not there is truth in the following statements:

The natural political state of man is anarchy.  Governments are an intervention against nature and the natural rights of man because they are the creation of man.




> Citation?
> *Tom Woods: "Nullification - Jefferson's Solution"*
> http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=124520


Can you cite specific events?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

BTW, welcome to the forum.

----------


## Travlyr

> Education! "The truth shall make you free!"


That's right.




> *State nullification:*
> YouTube - Thomas E Woods - Principles of 98
> 
> *Jury nullification:*
> http://www.freedom-central.net/trialbyjury.html


Good call.




> "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
> 
> --Thomas Jefferson.





> People are not stupid, they were just deceived.


Exactly. 




> Are you joking? "best representation free people can elect"? Really? How about "best representation banksters could buy?"


Right, the people can fix this now that the bankers have been exposed.  




> But if people are truly informed, they will not be as easily manipulated and will vote very differently!


And this concept is dependent on education as you suggest.  The internet is a most valuable resource for spreading the word.




> *Tom Woods: "Nullification - Jefferson's Solution"*
> http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=124520


Keep up the good work, welcome to the forums, and realize that no one has yet accomplished the goal of organizing to effectively promote and win our liberty.  
But we are working on it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Thank you Travlyr! Good post!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

*Rub, rub, rub..... POOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Me:  Hello Education Genie

Education Genie:  Hello Live_Free_Or_Die, how can I serve thee

Me:  Education Genie there are a lot of people claiming to believe in you and your mystical power to convert peoples beliefs.  I am trying to understand what you are exactly and how do you work?

Education Genie:  I am not sure if I can help Live_Free_Or_Die, maybe you should try educating them.

Me:  Thanks Education Genie

----------


## Travlyr

Most people have been taught in the government schooling system.  That is indoctrination rather than education as evidenced by the difficulty people have in communicating their ideas. Government Systems 101 fails to educate.

By studying and researching documented facts critical thinking skills develop with more truths coming to light.  Education is learning and teaching those truths.  Education works.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

*Rub, rub, rub..... POOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Me:  Hello Education Genie

Education Genie:  Hello Live_Free_Or_Die, how can I serve thee

Me:  I just wanted to congratulate you on your success Education Genie.  It appears you have surpassed God in sheer number of believers who can't explain why they believe in you.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Most people have been taught in the government schooling system.  That is indoctrination rather than education as evidenced by the difficulty people have in communicating their ideas. Government Systems 101 fails to educate.
> 
> By studying and researching documented facts critical thinking skills develop with more truths coming to light.  Education is learning and teaching those truths.  Education works.


Amen! Truth works!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *rub, rub, rub..... Poof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> me:  Hello education genie
> 
> education genie:  Hello live_free_or_die, how can i serve thee
> 
> me:  I just wanted to congratulate you on your success education genie.  It appears you have surpassed god in sheer number of believers who can't explain why they believe in you.


lmao!!! :d:d:d:d

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment*
> 
> *Since Private Property is the foundation of all Liberty, the Fundamental Law of the Country is that Private property shall not be violated. The owner of the property can do whatever he wants with his property as long as he is not violating the property of others.
> 
> All such violations and appropriate restorations are to be decided by the jury of peers.
> 
> All other laws whether Federal or State or local, pertaining to private property are hereby and henceforth abolished.
> 
> Congress shall make no law, except with regards to public property. And all such laws should apply to all citizens equally, honoring natural, unalienable rights of individuals, and the rights of the States.*
> ...


But government violates private property in almost everything it does!  I'm glad to see you're on the verge of your an-cap epiphany.

----------


## Travlyr

> Amen! Truth works!


Education and truth are indeed valuable.  Some believe that the republic died the day it was born.  Some believe that a voluntary society is possible in the face of oligarchical monopolies.

Learning is a process based on truths.  Education may not offer everyone advantage, but there are many that will adjust their beliefs based on facts brought to light  

Keep up the good work.

----------


## MelissaWV

And, on the eve of ratification of this Amendment... I'd just like to say...

The President has just assigned a "Property Czar," whose sole job it will be to head a commission which will determine which property is public, and which is private.  This commission will be made up of lawyers and, seeing as most property is not really owned by private citizens, it will likely find that most of the land people think of as "private property" is actually public.

Don't worry, we've stacked the USSC to agree with this.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

*Rub, rub, rub..... POOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Me:  Hello Education Genie

Education Genie:  Hello Live_Free_Or_Die, how can I serve thee

Me:  Education Genie, how did you manage to surpass God in sheer number of believers who can't explain you?

Education Genie:  The truth will set you free Live_Free_Or_Die.  People do not like being raped, pillaged, and sacked and this is why you need truth.  The truth will set you free.

Me:  And where can I find truth?

Education Genie:  I have some extra truth lying around my lamp Live_Free_Or_Die.

Me:  Education Genie can I have some truth about whether my God is greater than your God?

Education Genie:  Sure Live_Free_Or_Die here it is!!!  It's on sale.  Would you like to buy some 100% Authentic, Education Genie Certified "Is my God greater than your God " truth?  Don't settle for imitation truth Live_Free_Or_Die.  This is the real stuff.  This is the kind of truth that sets men free so fast they are willing to die for it.  Tell you what Live_Free_Or_Die, I can see you did not come prepared to be set free today and purchase some truth so I am willing to offer you financing terms on this purchase.  Your friendly Education Genie also accepts VISA, Mastercard, Discover, and American Express!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> How many people is that exactly? 10% of what? What evidence do you have the rest will follow? Ron Paul polled at 10% and the rest did not follow. Medina polled at 10% and the rest did not follow. Kokesh polled at 10% and the rest did not follow.


Good point. Maybe we need more. The only defense I could say though is that we want 10% of the population, whereas 10% you mention are 10% of those who voted which is only about 40% of the population. So we need to about double that number (of people voting for Ron Paul) to achieve 10% of the population!

How many people have you contacted per day on average over the past year? 
What's your point man? Education does not work? Then truth doesn't work, and I hope you do not believe that.

Does that make everyone who doesn't agree with you uneducated? 
Yes, provided what I believe is indeed true.

If education does not guarantee people will change their beliefs why do you assume or believe education will convince people to agree with you?
Truth has its own convincing power. People will have to embrace it or become slaves. The choice is theirs.

How much more likely exactly?
If the education is based on truth, it makes it practically certain. On the other hand, absent truth based education, liberty is completely impossible.

Why does your plan for individual liberty depend on other people? No one can be free without depending on other people?
Good point. I am talking about political, economical, and social freedom. That, by definition involves more than one person.

If people believe bad information are they stupid for not being able to discern good information from bad information?
Depends on the amount of good information available.

How are they responsible? Please provide an example of justice proportioned by knowledge so I can have the right information.
Ultimately, this is how God will judge you, according to the knowledge you had. The more you know, the more responsible you are for your actions to do good and to treat your neighbor as yourself.

If under the illusion of a republic every issue is not subject to popular vote why would it matter what % of incomming communications to Congress is?
Are you suggesting people would be better off with more democracy where they can vote on every issue to insure the will of the people?
Under a Constitutional Republic there are limits on democracy,there are some things you do NOT get to vote on: namely the rights of individual. Those are absolute.
In case of bailouts, the individual rights of citizens were violated because the government robbed everyone to reward the banksters. So the popular vote against that robbery was totally appropriate! And this is the case where the voice of the people should have been heard, but was ignored. This provides good information about the character of our "representatives" and we will have to vote them out, and vote in those who will respect the voice of the people in this important matter.


Why is it wrong?
Because both Bush and Obama are collectivist, and do not have proper respect neither for individual liberty nor for the Constitution.

How do you brainwash someone?
Repetition.

Provide an example of how I could brainwash you?
I don't think you can, because I know the truth.

Don't the best representation free people can elect determine or appoint the people who determine the curriculum of public schools?
Public school curriculum was hijacked by collectivists and closet socialist. Watch this
*Rare 1982 interview with Norman Dodds*YouTube - Norman Dodd On Tax Exempt Foundations


How did they misinform people?
They taught them that gold money is bad, but socialism is good.


Is it even possible to misinform someone?
Yes. You seemed to be misinformed, because you believe education and truth do not work. The banksters would highly disagree with you, because they used education system and media heavily to misinform the people.


Is it possible to misinform someone when people have a natural right to say or believe whatever they choose?
You forgot about existence of truth. It does not depend on what you believe or say, it speaks for itself, and exist independent of your opinions about it. Truth is the way things really are and really will be. By fighting against the truth you fight against reality, and you will lose.


How do you discern truth?
Good question. I'd say, study it out and pray about it. Also your own experience will eventually convince you of the truth. It is inevitable, only it may take a little longer.

Provide an example of how one can discern whether or not there is truth in the following statements:
The natural political state of man is anarchy. Governments are an intervention against nature and the natural rights of man because they are the creation of man.
Anarchy is a violation of natural rights of man, because in anarchy the one with the biggest gun wins. Natural rights of man come from God. Right to life; right to own property; freedom of speech and of religion; the right to defend yourself, etc.  These rights must be respected and honored for peace and prosperity to prevail. The only PROPER role of government is to defend these natural rights and NOTHING more.

Can you cite specific events?
Watch the video, they are mentioned in there
*Tom Woods: "Nullification - Jefferson's Solution"*
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=124520

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> And, on the eve of ratification of this Amendment... I'd just like to say...
> 
> The President has just assigned a "Property Czar," whose sole job it will be to head a commission which will determine which property is public, and which is private.  This commission will be made up of lawyers and, seeing as most property is not really owned by private citizens, it will likely find that most of the land people think of as "private property" is actually public.
> 
> Don't worry, we've stacked the USSC to agree with this.


Very smart comment (not to mention profile picture). 

Hence is the paramount and key importance of State and Jury nullification. When this is understood, the only important  determination about what is public and private will be the people's determination (not Obama's Czar's). 

Please see: 
*Jury nullification*
http://www.freedom-central.net/trialbyjury.html

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Any more comments on this guys?

Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

I added a poll at the top of this thread. Please vote!

Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Ron Paul on the Colbert Report - April 25, 2011 - Talks about Sound Money!  

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...-2011/ron-paul

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Added these two lines:

"Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership. 

A specific public property shall be managed by the lowest level of government that can possibly do so. "

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Changed it again, (see at the top), by adding the two sections "Private" and "Public". Is it clearer now?

----------


## osan

> *The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
> **
> Private Property**:
> 
> *Since Private Property is the foundation of all Liberty,




I see no definition of "private property".  This is major fail.




> the Fundamental Law of the Country is that Private property shall not be violated.


This is redundant as it is pretty well already the law of the land.  Have you not read the BoR?




> The owner of the property can do whatever he wants with his property as long as he is not violating the property of others.
> 
> All such violations and appropriate restorations are to be decided by the unanimous voice of the jury of peers.
> 
> All other laws whether Federal or State or local, pertaining to private property are hereby and henceforth abolished.


Your heart is clearly in the right place, but this is not the answer.

First of all, no constitution, regardless of how well crafted, will avail a people who are too ignorant, corrupt, and complacent to be trusted to know how to enforce its stipulations or to have the will to do so.  Once the moral center of a people is lost, perdition becomes the foregone conclusion.  The only unknown variable is the question of how long it shall take.





> *Public Property**:*
> *
> Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership. 
> *


Boo hiss.  I do not believe in "public property".  I do, however, believe in "the commons", which is property to which NOBODY holds claim of ownership and to which all people may freely make use.  Roads are one example of this.




> Congress shall make no law, except with regards to public property. And all such laws should apply to all citizens equally, honoring natural, unalienable rights of individuals, and the rights of the States.


Once again your good intentions are noted, as is the fact that such a provision has no clear meaning assigned and, therefore, cannot even in theory be enforced in a given way.  Add to that the lassitude, ignorance, and general corruption of the populace and your nice sounding bit becomes just another fart in a hurricane - lost to the world for all practical purposes.

This reliance on constitutions and written words is largely ridiculous IMO because they have no power in a world where insufficient interest and respect for them is the rule.

The Constitution I wrote is far and away superior to that of the US variety.  It is far more complete, explicit, and unequivocal.  It is also a colossal failure exactly because so many people here are so hopelessly stupid in their beliefs and corrupt in their hearts.  It is teetering on the edge of hopelessness this day.  The current system preys upon every known human weakness and it is kicking our asses.  Fight on, mind you - but be aware that these are not the sorts of solutions that will save the day.  The human heart can do it, but how many people are willing to walk the seemingly difficult path?

Nice try, though.  Thank you for trying.  Keep it up.  It is good to exercise the brain along such lines.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I see no definition of "private property". This is major fail.


Private Property is a most fundamental concept. It means complete ownership of something. I did not see the need to define it beyond saying: The owner of the property can do whatever he wants with his property as long as he is not violating the property of others. To me private property means your mind, body, possessions, labor, etc. The interpretation of the jury will be the decisive one. Hence the need for good and moral people, as you correctly pointed out.





> Your heart is clearly in the right place, but this is not the answer.
> 
>  First of all, no constitution, regardless of how well crafted, will avail a people who are too ignorant, corrupt, and complacent to be trusted to know how to enforce its stipulations or to have the will to do so. Once the moral center of a people is lost, perdition becomes the foregone conclusion. The only unknown variable is the question of how long it shall take.


To restore the moral center (as you well put), you need to expose people to true and eternal principles of Liberty, of which Private Property is THE key. And I believe that good and just laws are necessary if you wish to maintain Liberty. Private property is the beginning of that law. And I agree, that unless people repent, and begin respect their neighbor as themselves, and their God who is the true owner of this planet and everything on it, they cannot prosper, nor be saved.





> Boo hiss. I do not believe in "public property". I do, however, believe in "the commons", which is property to which NOBODY holds claim of ownership and to which all people may freely make use. Roads are one example of this.


Ownership means a range of control. If no one owns the road, who will maintain it? Equal claim of ownership, in my view is the proper way to look at it, and that is Public property.





> such a provision has no clear meaning assigned


How so? "Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership."




> This reliance on constitutions and written words is largely ridiculous IMO because they have no power in a world where insufficient interest and respect for them is the rule.


 Good Constitution is NECESSARY, though insufficient condition for maintaining Liberty. The other part of the coin is the people who need to respect God, each other, and just and holy laws, of which Private Property is a fundamental one.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

G. Edward Griffin: Individualism & Capitalism vs. Collectivism & Monopolies





This amendment:
The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

together with these:

Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
Taxation Constitutional Amendment
Nullification Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
would end government-monopoly-capitalism, and restore Free Market Capitalism, a.k.a. Liberty.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

G. Edward Griffin on Corporations




*G. Edward Griffin explains why anger at corporations is misplaced. Corporations don't even exist, he says, but merely are legal fictions to allow groups of people to carry on joint businesses. The evil we see is committed by the managers of those corporations, and the solution is to remove the legal immunity they now enjoy. If they are held personally responsible for their directives, 99% of the problems with corporations would vanish overnight. YouTube 2011 Nov 4*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Ok, I made the wording even stronger by replacing:

"honoring natural, unalienable rights of individuals, and the rights of the States." with:

"and must not violate private property nor natural, unalienable rights of any individual."
What do you think?

----------


## ConCap

I vote no.


All such violations and appropriate restorations are to be decided by the unanimous voice of the jury of peers.

State only

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I vote no.
> 
> 
> All such violations and appropriate restorations are to be decided by the unanimous voice of the jury of peers.
> 
> State only


Who is state? The Fuhrer? The politician bought by the bankster? Short of angels ruling the government (fat chance for now) a rotating jury of peers is the best next thing. And they do not get to convict unless UNANIMOUSLY. 




> "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by  which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
> 
> --Thomas Jefferson.

----------


## centure7

I voted no because I believe person-hood is the foundation for all liberty, not private property.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I voted no because I believe person-hood is the foundation for all liberty, not private property.


In my mind it is one and the same. What is person-hood? Ownership. You own yourself, your mind, your body, your speach, the fruits of your labor, etc. There is no conflict here. Ownership and person-hood are one and the same. The difference, of course, is that it is easier to define ownership than person-hood, therefore my definition lands itself to a more robust legislation, which is why I chose it. Are you throwing out the baby with bath water?

Thanks for your comment.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

John Stossel's Illegal Everything




Solution: Abolish all law pertaining to private property except one: private property is not to be violated.


This is the purpose of this amendment. 

Just like advocating freedom of religion is NOT equivalent to endorsing atheism, so is decriminalizing certain immoral behavior is not equivalent to endorsing it. 

Not everything that is wrong is right to forbid by government force. And not everything that is right is right to FORCE to perform. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

With regards to Public property, I added "a) agreed upon by the majority of citizens."

----------


## Christian Liberty

Technically this doesn't abolish eminent domain, so this is useless, IMO.  Plus, it doesn't really define what violates someone's property rights.  For instance, if I build a clearly pornographic shop next to a preschool, or a firing range next to someone's house, are you violating their property rights?  In my opinion if the other people were there first, its at least plausible that you could be.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Technically this doesn't abolish eminent domain, so this is useless, IMO.


"*Private property shall not be violated."* This means end of "eminent domain." So technically it DOES abolish eminent domain, because "eminent domain" is a violation of Private Property.




> Plus, it doesn't really define what violates someone's property rights.


It does not define most of the words, because English is assumed. Violation of property is any unjust control of it without permission of the owner. 




> For instance, if I build a clearly pornographic shop next to a preschool, or a firing range next to someone's house, are you violating their property rights?  In my opinion if the other people were there first, its at least plausible that you could be.


Pornographic shop violates private and public property by projecting pornographic images upon it. If people find those images offensive (as they should) they have the right to use force to stop the violation. So is for firing range. The noise violates the property of the neighbors, and is not allowed without their permission. So this works.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

America’s Deep Political Crisis and Private Property


                                                                                                          By Michael S. Rozeff                                                        on July 9, 2013
 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/m...itical-crisis/
...

The crisis is unusual in being slow and pervasive, rather than being   quick and limited in scope. This is occurring because the heart and soul   of the crisis has been institutionalized and legalized.

 That heart is the income tax, passed in 1913 by constitutional   amendment (although the legal ratification has been disputed). Human   wealth embodied in the human being is what generates income, in   conjunction with non-human capital. One has property not only in objects   but in one’s own person and body. The taxation of this by society,   government or state is a taking of one’s property. It is a form of   slavery, a degree of slavery, in which the state co-owns the person and   body of those subject to the income tax. Regulations that determine how   one may generate or use wealth amount to roundabout forms of taxes.

 These taxes and regulations could only be enacted as laws under the   notion that older ideas of individual property ownership, even in one’s   person, were inadequate or unjust, and that they needed to be modified   or replaced by the newer ideas of property being a social matter. It is   extraordinarily ironic that after a bloody war that ended slavery, a   short 48 years later, the country would end up with an income tax that   enslaved everyone subject to it.

 America seriously modified its property rights regime in 1913 without   abandoning it. It now had two contradictory ways of thinking about   property. In the 1930s, the social function or social necessity or   social welfare way of thinking about property rose in importance.   Government intervention into property, by way of both taxation and   regulation, became an accepted feature of American politics.

 But the contradiction remains. Is property private or not? The   extension of government power and violence into a long list of “states”   like the welfare state, warfare state, penal state, big pharma state,   etc. is a manifestation of interventionism. Even though these   interventions serve only private interest groups, they all are   rationalized by the idea that the intervention policy is overcoming   problems with private property by assuring that property’s social side   is tended to. This basic idea, however, crowds out and destroys private   property. Every state intervention that transfers wealth to   military-industrial businesses, or to banks or to surveillance firms or   to large farmers or to prison builders and prison operators, takes that   wealth from those who own private property.

 Both Left and Right adhere to the idea that property is social. Both   support interventions, but each with its own favored recipients of the   resulting confiscated wealth.

*The long-running crisis in America cannot be ended without resolving  the question of property rights.*  The crisis will continue and deepen as  long as government  interventionism continues. The latter depends on the  theory that the  government can legitimately and justly tax and regulate  for the sake of  society because all property, including all persons and  their wealth,  lie at the government’s disposal. *This theory of property  being  social and the institutionalization of this theory are the causes  of  America’s silent and unrecognized crisis.*

If  a person does not own what he or she produces, then who does? If  other  people do, which is the social or collective answer, then we get   constant crisis as an outcome. If everyone owns everything and   everyone’s wealth collectively, then there will be continual conflicts   about who gets what. The incentive to produce and preserve wealth will   deteriorate. Income production and job opportunities will decline.   Economic crisis results from a political determination that property is   social, not individual.

 The alternative is that each and every person has a right to life,   liberty and the pursuit of happiness, understanding that this comprises   each person’s property rights in the wealth and income that he or she   generates, recognizing that each person justly owns what he or she   produces, not other people, not society, not the government and not the   state.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Added the definition of Private Property to the amendment.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Added the phrase: "*Both Justice and Liberty are meaningless and do not exist without Private Property.* "

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Added logic paragraph. (See top of the thread).

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Changed the wording of the top post as follows: 




> *The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment*
> *Private Property:*
> 
> *Private Property is defined as exclusive ownership of things by an  individual. The owner of the property has the right to do whatever he  pleases with his own property as long as he does not violate the  property of another. Therefore, the owner does not need to obtain  anyone’s permission to use his own property, but everyone else must  obtain his voluntary permission to use it.
> 
> The rightful owner of a property is either the first user of it, or the  recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest, or  sale.* 
> 
> *Thus, Liberty is defined as the right to do with one's own property  as the one pleases, as long as he does not violate the property of  another. And Justice is non-violation of Private property, with the  implied right to use equal force to offset the aggression of another  against one's property.  
> 
> ...

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Farmer Faces $2M in Fines for Birthday Party on Her Property* 
But the People Push Back





The ultimate solution to this, of course, are the principles found in: 
*The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The essence of Libertarianism is the prohibition of all forms of aggressive violence. Aggressive violence being defined as violation of Private Property. Private Property being defined as all the things you justly and exclusively own, including you, your body, your mind, the fruits of your labor, etc.; and justice, liberty and good itself being defined as Private Property, and evil defined as violation of Private Property. Even public property, or group property being derived from Private Property, where each person's share in the group property is considered his private property, whereby he cannot be justly deprived of it.

In light of these correct principles, many vexing questions of modern politics become extremely simple, where it is instantly obvious that any public program based on aggressive violence of taxation or regulation has no right to exist. In the end the only Law that remains is this one: Private Property is not to be violated. 

As the author of the article puts it in his conclusion: "Conservative and liberal debates over public policy are utterly  meaningless. Not only do they not have the right answers; they don’t  even ask the right questions."

Enjoy:

*Libertarian Answers*
 
By Laurence M. Vance
February 6, 2014

  
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Echoing George Wallace, it has been said many times  that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between liberals and  conservatives. This is even usually true when the focus is on the most  liberal liberals and the most conservative conservatives. The similarity  may not be apparent on the surface, but once you compare both groups to  libertarians it becomes perfectly clear.

 The answers that libertarians give to questions debated by liberals  and conservatives are unexpected and not what either of those groups  wants to hear. I list below 11 topics with 50 questions that might be  debated by liberals and conservatives followed by the libertarian  answer.

*Foreign Aid*

 1. Should the United States give less foreign aid to Egypt because of its violent crackdowns on protestors?

 Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.

 2. Should the United States give more foreign aid to Israel because it is our ally in the Middle East?

 Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.

 3. Should a country’s foreign aid be tied to its human rights record?

 Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.

*Disaster Relief*

 4. How much disaster relief should the United States government provide to the Philippines?

 Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to provide disaster relief to foreigners.

 5. How much disaster relief should the United States government have  provided to Americans after the tornadoes in Illinois last year?

 Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to provide disaster relief to Americans.

 6. How much of a role should the U.S. military play in disaster relief?

 Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of the military to provide disaster relief.

*Education*

 7. Should the U.S. Department of Education provide educational  vouchers so low-income children can go to the school of their choice?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no U.S. Department of Education in the first place.

 8. Should students at public schools be required to wear uniforms?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no public schools in the first place.

 9. Should the federal government cap the student loan interest rate?

 Libertarian answer: The federal government should not be in the student loan business.

 10. Should students be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no Pledge of Allegiance for students to recite.

 11. How much should children who qualify for the National School Lunch Program have to pay for their lunch?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no children who qualify since it is not the business of government to provide anyone lunch.

 12. Should Head Start be expanded?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no Head Start to expand.

*Taxes*

 13. Should the Earned Income Tax Credit be indexed to inflation?

 Libertarian answer: All refundable tax credits should be eliminated.

 14. Should welfare benefits be included in determining taxable income?

 Libertarian answer: There shouldn’t be any welfare benefits in the first place.

 15. Should the income tax be changed to a flat tax?

 Libertarian answer: The income tax should be abolished.

 16. Should the income tax code be made fairer?

 Libertarian answer: The income tax code should be eliminated.

 17. Should the number of tax brackets be increased or decreased?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no tax brackets in the first place.

 18. How much more should the “rich” pay in income taxes than the “poor”?

 Libertarian answer: Neither the “rich” nor the “poor” should pay any income tax.

 19. Which tax loopholes should be closed?

 Libertarian answer: None of them; they should be made larger so Americans can keep more of their money.

 20. Which tax deductions should be extended and for how long?

 Libertarian answers: All of them should be made permanent so Americans can keep more of their money.

*Health Care*

 21. How much prescription drug coverage should be included with Medicare?

 Libertarian answer: Medicare should not exist in the first place.

 22. Should the FDA approve more drugs or at least approve drugs quicker?

 Libertarian answer: The FDA should not exist in the first place.

 23. If Obamacare is repealed, how should the government reform health care?

 Libertarian answer: The federal government should have nothing at all to do with health care in the first place.

 24. How much funding should the government devote to finding a cure for cancer?

 Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to fund medical research of any kind.

*Social Security*

 25. How much of a COLA should Social Security recipients receive next year?

 Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.

 26. How quickly should the Social Security retirement age be raised?

 Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.

 27. By what percentage should the Social Security payroll tax cap be increased for 2014?

 Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.

*Government Agencies*

 28. Should NASA go back to the moon or go to Mars instead?

 Libertarian answer: NASA should not exist in the first place.

 29. Should NPR give equal time to conservatives?

 Libertarian answer: NPR should not exist in the first place.

 30. Should the NEA be prevented from funding pornographic art?

 Libertarian answer: The NEA should not exist in the first place.

 31. How much of a fine should the FCC levy on television networks for broadcasting profane speech or actions?

 Libertarian answer: The FCC should not exist in the first place.

 32. Should AMTRAK increase its fares in an attempt to be profitable?

 Libertarian answer: AMTRAK should not exist in the first place.

 33. Should the TSA use less invasive procedures?

 Libertarian answer: The TSA should not exist in the first place.

 34. What criteria should the SBA use in granting loans?

 Libertarian answer: The SBA should not exist in the first place.

*The Military*

 35. Should the U.S. intervene militarily in Syria if it can prove that chemical weapons were used?

 Libertarian answer: The U.S. military should not intervene in any foreign country for any reason.

 36. Which overseas U.S. bases should be consolidated or closed?

 Libertarian answer: The United States should not have any overseas bases.

 37. By what percentage should the defense budget be increased or decreased?

 Libertarian answer: It should be cut to the bone.

 38. How many U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan as advisers and peacekeepers?

 Libertarian answer: The U.S. military should never have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.

*Economics*

 39. What should the minimum wage be?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no minimum wage in the first place.

 40. For how long should unemployment benefits be extended?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no unemployment benefits to be extended.

 41. Should food stamp benefits be adjusted every year depending on the state of the economy?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no food stamp benefits to be adjusted.

 42. By what percentage should a businessman be able to raise prices  in the aftermath of a disaster and not be guilty of price gouging?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no such thing as price gouging laws.

 43. What is the maximum interest rate that should be allowed on a credit card or a payday loan?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no government regulation of interest rates to being with.

*The Drug War*

 44. Should marijuana use be legal under certain circumstances?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no restrictions on marijuana use for any reason.

 45. Should users of crack cocaine do more prison time than users of powder cocaine?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no difference between the two; both should be perfectly legal.

 46. Should drug traffickers be eligible for parole?

 Libertarian answer: No, they should be pardoned and immediately  released as long as they have not also committed any real crimes.

*Miscellaneous*

 47. Should public libraries be allowed to make available risqué books?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no public libraries to begin with.

 48. Should funding for Planned Parenthood be cut since the organization performs abortions?

 Libertarian answer: There should not be any government funding of any private organization in the first place.

 49. What should the CAFE standards for cars be for the 2014 model year?

 Libertarian answers: There should be no CAFE standards to being with.

 50. Should sexual orientation and gender identity be added to anti-discrimination laws?

 Libertarian answer: There should be no anti-discrimination laws in the first place.

 Conservative and liberal debates over public policy are utterly  meaningless. Not only do they not have the right answers; they don’t  even ask the right questions.



The Best of Laurence M. Vance

----------


## Weston White

Who knew it was all so cut-and-dried?  Really though, those answers seem to trend more toward anarchism than libertarianism.

However, I do wonder why he is against tax credits, but for tax deductions?  And really, it does not make much sense to tax government subsistence handouts, which in most instances are below the filing threshold regardless.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Who knew it was all so cut-and-dried?  Really though, those answers seem to trend more toward anarchism than libertarianism.


There is no real difference between just anarchism and libertarianism. They are both defined by non-aggression. But because anarchism is a loaded term with opposite/contradictory meanings, I do not use it, because it makes it too easy for the enemy to lie about you. Instead, I use terms Justice and Liberty. They are universal in scope and appeal. 




> However, I do wonder why he is against tax credits, but for tax deductions?


Good point, I caught that too, but I interpreted it to mean that since there should be no taxes therefore there is no need for tax credits. Thus I saved his logic.

Good catch. 

Thanks.

----------

