# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Major flaw in US constitution

## Kraig

If you follow Austrian economics you will know that congress never should have been given the power to coin money to begin with, not only that, but it should not have given this power to the states either.  This power should and always should remain in the hands of the people directly via the free market, money should be completely untouched by any form of government.  Not only would this have prevented congress from ever delegating this power to the Federal Reserve, the natural currencies that would have emerged in a free market would have been far superior even to the so called "gold standard" that was used before 1913.

I think most of the founders would agree with this in principle, especially Thomas Jefferson, but as great as their wisdom was they did not have access to the great work of Mises and others to learn from which we are now privy to - and they were not omnipotent.  This is just one example of how we need to look forward rather than backwards, it doesn't make any sense to go back to the same exact document got us where we are today.

If you want to learn more about natural money, here is a good article from mises.org:

http://mises.org/story/3340

There is also a great lecture by Lew Rockwell that covers this called The Gold Dollar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ll4HS1QW9M

----------


## Truth Warrior

*"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell*

----------


## acptulsa

You know, your statement got me thinking about counterfeit coins, which were probably the reason standard designs of gold and silver were devised and made nationwide.  And _that_ got me thinking about the old American saying, "Don't take any wooden nickles."

What is the Fed but a source of 'wooden nickles'?  Maybe we should use that.

And TW, if the A of C had been working all that well, they would have left well enough alone.  Though we might have been better off if the A of C had simply been allowed to collect tariffs and otherwise left it alone...

----------


## brandon

Good point OP.


Another major flaw was the title they gave to the "bill of rights."

Also, some of the wording should have been made more clear (Such as general welfare clause)

----------


## Kraig

Well I am really wondering what some of our constitutionalist friends here would think of natural money vs. the constitution.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> And TW, if the A of C had been working all that well, they would have left well enough alone. Though we might have been better off if the A of C had simply been allowed to collect tariffs and otherwise left it alone...


*The legally AUTHORIZED mission was to recommend "fixes" to the A o C and report findings back, NOT to overthrow it with a Federalist's cabal coup document OBVIOUSLY written in haste.*

----------


## Kraig

I'm really curious as to what Theocrat thinks about this one!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'm really curious as to what Theocrat thinks about this one!


 *I'll bet you can predict it. *

----------


## Kraig

> *I'll bet you can predict it. *


I'm hoping not though.

----------


## Elwar

I think excluding the words: "and general Welfare" from the Constitution would pretty much clean things up quite nicely. 

Of course, it has been taken beyond its original intent and used as an excuse for everything that any politician might think somehow is going toward the "general Welfare", even if it means studying cow farts for our "general Welfare".

Though it's interesting that cow farts are covered under "general Welfare" and yet the Constitution had to explicitely specify the creation of the Post Office as a legal power of Congress.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I think excluding the words: "and general Welfare" from the Constitution would pretty much clean things up quite nicely. 
> 
> Of course, it has been taken beyond its original intent and used as an excuse for everything that any politician might think somehow is going toward the "general Welfare", even if it means studying cow farts for our "general Welfare".
> 
> Though it's interesting that cow farts are covered under "general Welfare" and yet the Constitution had to explicitely specify the creation of the Post Office as a legal power of Congress.


 *I believe the SCOTUS has ruled previously that the Preamble has NO effect in "law" ( so called ).   When it starts out with a flat out LIE, you can be pretty confident that you're in deep doo doo.*

----------


## Xenophage

Agree with OP and TW's quote wholeheartedly.

If only Thomas Jefferson had single-handidly written our Constitution!

----------


## Kraig

So if we were going to amend the constitution to include this how would it be worded?  We couldn't simply leave out the coinage lingo because that would just let the states take over.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Agree with OP and TW's quote wholeheartedly.
> 
> If only Thomas Jefferson had single-handidly written our Constitution!


 *The Federalists sneaked it around while TJ was in Paris.  Hamilton's major involvement should be a dead giveaway of "shenanigans".<IMHO> *

----------


## Xenophage

An additional amendment:

The rights of the people to define, coin and manage money shall not be infringed.

----------


## Xenophage

> *The Federalists sneaked it around while TJ was in Paris.  Hamilton's major involvement should be a dead giveaway of "shenanigans".<IMHO> *


Yep.  Jefferson wrote angrily about it and in his letters urged for a Bill of Rights.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So if we were going to amend the constitution to include this how would it be worded? We couldn't simply leave out the coinage lingo because that would just let the states take over.


 *And the killer problem with that would be?*

----------


## Kraig

> *And the killer problem with that would be?*


Just bear with me this is going somewhere!

----------


## Xenophage

competing private currencies ftw

----------


## Kraig

> competing private currencies ftw


Then banking would actually be a legitimate business rather than the protected child of the government.

----------


## MrRichardson

One doesn't need to look any further than the very first sentence of the Constitution to find a $#@!up.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yep. Jefferson wrote angrily about it and in his letters urged for a Bill of Rights.


*Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as the foundation of the Constitution and added, to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn  is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.*
*http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution*

*Today Voilà!*

----------


## Mesogen

> One doesn't need to look any further than the very first sentence of the Constitution to find a $#@!up.


If the people of the time wanted the Constitution to be a compact among states, then why did they begin the document with the phrase "We the people"? 

There are so many holes in the constitution, but it just doesn't matter anymore. The constitution has been read away in courts for so long that it might as well not exist anymore.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action*
*http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109*

*No Treason. No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority. (1870).**

----------


## MrRichardson

> If the people of the time wanted the Constitution to be a compact among states, then why did they begin the document with the phrase "We the people"?


I was referring more along the lines to the fact that the preamble begins with the words "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" That's a grammatical $#@!up, because something can't be more perfect. It's either perfect or it's not.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> One doesn't need to look any further than the very first sentence of the Constitution to find a $#@!up.


* "We the People" is a LIE. They did no such thing. *

----------


## demolama

The reason for the Constitution's mandate for Congress to coin money and regulate the value there of is because of what happened before hand.  The Articles allowed states to make paper money as well as coin their own coins used for the each state.  The competing currencies and daily exchange rates for goods crippled the fledgling economy between the new states within the union.

The lack of gold and silver in the economy since the days before the revolution created a problem with the newly independent nations... there really was not enough to go around. In fact, this lack of gold and silver was one of the major catalysts for the revolution.  The forced taxes upon the colonies by the King's men could only be paid in gold and silver.  Since the colonies weren't rolling in it like their Spanish counterparts there was nothing they could do to pay the said taxes. 

This is why the printing of continentals and other forms of currency was being circulated since the colonial days.  Ben Franklin's wooden nickles was just one of many of the solutions.  However, none of these contained any real wealth and was the major cause of the economic downturn in the new states and the reason we failed to pay back our loans to France for their assistance during the revolution.  We had no wealth.

This is how the first new world currency, the Spanish dollar, became in high demand in the colonies and continued as legal tender in the U.S as far up as the 1850's (if I remember correctly) and was the model for the U.S. coin via Coinage act of 1792.

While the barter system thrived in the new states, the competing currencies and the lack of a standard crippled the early republic's economic growth against foreign nations.  This is why the standard of weights and measures was delegated to Congress, which in turn determined how much silver made up a dollar matching an already in demand Spanish Dollar.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The reason for the Constitution's mandate for Congress to coin money and regulate the value there of is because of what happened before hand. The Articles allowed states to make paper money as well as coin their own coins used for the each state. The competing currencies and daily exchange rates for goods crippled the fledgling economy between the new states within the union.
> 
> The lack of gold and silver in the economy since the days before the revolution created a problem with the newly independent nations... there really was not enough to go around. In fact, this lack of gold and silver was one of the major catalysts for the revolution. The forced taxes upon the colonies by the King's men could only be paid in gold and silver. Since the colonies weren't rolling in it like their Spanish counterparts there was nothing they could do to pay the said taxes. 
> 
> This is why the printing of continentals and other forms of currency was being circulated since the colonial days. Ben Franklin's wooden nickles was just one of many of the solutions. However, none of these contained any real wealth and was the major cause of the economic downturn in the new states and the reason we failed to pay back our loans to France for their assistance during the revolution. We had no wealth.
> 
> This is how the first new world currency, the Spanish dollar, became in high demand in the colonies and continued as legal tender in the U.S as far up as the 1850's (if I remember correctly) and was the model for the U.S. coin via Coinage act of 1792.
> 
> While the barter system thrived in the new states, the competing currencies and the lack of a standard crippled the early republic's economic growth against foreign nations. This is why the standard of weights and measures was delegated to Congress, which in turn determined how much silver made up a dollar matching an already in demand Spanish Dollar.


*Europe managed somehow to economically function for CENTURIES without a single centralized "unified" monetary issuing AUTHORITY.  The US was just 13 small states at the time of the US CONstitution, and HAD managed to function somehow.*

*Communist Manifesto, Plank # 5.*

*Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.*

----------


## Kraig

> The reason for the Constitution's mandate for Congress to coin money and regulate the value there of is because of what happened before hand.  The Articles allowed states to make paper money as well as coin their own coins used for the each state.  The competing currencies and daily exchange rates for goods crippled the fledgling economy between the new states within the union.
> 
> The lack of gold and silver in the economy since the days before the revolution created a problem with the newly independent nations... there really was not enough to go around. In fact, this lack of gold and silver was one of the major catalysts for the revolution.  The forced taxes upon the colonies by the King's men could only be paid in gold and silver.  Since the colonies weren't rolling in it like their Spanish counterparts there was nothing they could do to pay the said taxes. 
> 
> This is why the printing of continentals and other forms of currency was being circulated since the colonial days.  Ben Franklin's wooden nickles was just one of many of the solutions.  However, none of these contained any real wealth and was the major cause of the economic downturn in the new states and the reason we failed to pay back our loans to France for their assistance during the revolution.  We had no wealth.
> 
> This is how the first new world currency, the Spanish dollar, became in high demand in the colonies and continued as legal tender in the U.S as far up as the 1850's (if I remember correctly) and was the model for the U.S. coin via Coinage act of 1792.
> 
> While the barter system thrived in the new states, the competing currencies and the lack of a standard crippled the early republic's economic growth against foreign nations.  This is why the standard of weights and measures was delegated to Congress, which in turn determined how much silver made up a dollar matching an already in demand Spanish Dollar.


I have not looked at that situation specifically but do you have any information to point me towards that would elaborate on that?  What you are saying seems to completely go against the Austrian theory and competing currencies.  I'm wondering if those in power then just used this as an excuse to get control over coining money, after all how many times have we seen our government say they are doing something for our good when we know it isn't?

Does your place on the totem pole compared to other countries matter if you are living free in peace and prosperity?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I have not looked at that situation specifically but do you have any information to point me towards that would elaborate on that? What you are saying seems to completely go against the Austrian theory and competing currencies. I'm wondering if those in power then just used this as an excuse to get control over coining money, after all how many times have we seen our government say they are doing something for our good when we know it isn't?
> 
> Does your place on the totem pole compared to other countries matter if you are living free in peace and prosperity?


 *Hamilton married into the Rothschild ( Bank of England ) family.*

----------


## torchbearer

> The reason for the Constitution's mandate for Congress to coin money and regulate the value there of is because of what happened before hand.  The Articles allowed states to make paper money as well as coin their own coins used for the each state.  The competing currencies and daily exchange rates for goods crippled the fledgling economy between the new states within the union.
> 
> The lack of gold and silver in the economy since the days before the revolution created a problem with the newly independent nations... there really was not enough to go around. In fact, this lack of gold and silver was one of the major catalysts for the revolution.  The forced taxes upon the colonies by the King's men could only be paid in gold and silver.  Since the colonies weren't rolling in it like their Spanish counterparts there was nothing they could do to pay the said taxes. 
> 
> This is why the printing of continentals and other forms of currency was being circulated since the colonial days.  Ben Franklin's wooden nickles was just one of many of the solutions.  However, none of these contained any real wealth and was the major cause of the economic downturn in the new states and the reason we failed to pay back our loans to France for their assistance during the revolution.  We had no wealth.
> 
> This is how the first new world currency, the Spanish dollar, became in high demand in the colonies and continued as legal tender in the U.S as far up as the 1850's (if I remember correctly) and was the model for the U.S. coin via Coinage act of 1792.
> 
> While the barter system thrived in the new states, the competing currencies and the lack of a standard crippled the early republic's economic growth against foreign nations.  This is why the standard of weights and measures was delegated to Congress, which in turn determined how much silver made up a dollar matching an already in demand Spanish Dollar.


I'm thankful you have put some knowledge into an otherwise worthless thread.
Unfortunately, unless some lurker reads this.. you have wasted your time.

Why?
Because the audience in this thread don't really want an answer.
They want you to put up an answer so they can mock you.

Imagine having 350 million different forms of competing currencies. How would you know the exchange rates for all of them?
you pointing out the need for a standard in weights and measures. But see- that is law and order.
The people in this thread want chaos and tyranny. They don't think they want that.. but indeed they do.
Any answer short of a 'free-for-all' in all things will be incorrect in their eyes, and they will mock you.
That is why your brilliant response is wasted on a useless thread.

----------


## Kraig

> I'm thankful you have put some knowledge into an otherwise worthless thread.
> Unfortunately, unless some lurker reads this.. you have wasted your time.
> 
> Why?
> Because the audience in this thread don't really want an answer.
> They want you to put up an answer so they can mock you.
> 
> Imagine having 350 million different forms of competing currencies. How would you know the exchange rates for all of them?
> you pointing out the need for a standard in weights and measures. But see- that is law and order.
> ...


Dude, I did not even mock him, I asked questions to try and learn more and further the discussion, you are the only one here mocking.

What is your take on Austrian economics?

What is your take on Ron Paul's stance on competing currencies?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul434.html (the author of that link is Ron Paul before you discount it just for being on lewrockwell.com)

Did you even look at the original links I posted?  Do you believe Ron Paul is also for chaos and tyranny?

Discussing a position that Ron Paul advocates on ronpaulforums.com is not a worthless thread.

It doesn't surprise me that you would only jump in this thread after someone else did the disagreeing for you.  I have lost all respect for you, not that I expect you to care.   I don't expect you to agree with me but I did expect you would at least look at the information before running your mouth off to make me seem like an idiot.

How do you know the exchange rate for dollars and euros or any international currency for that matter?

----------


## Matt Collins

For the separation of currency and state?

----------


## Kraig

> For the separation of currency and state?


Separation of market and state, the only way to have a free market.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Stop Intervening in the Economy*
*You're killing us.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'm thankful you have put some knowledge into an otherwise worthless thread.
> Unfortunately, unless some lurker reads this.. you have wasted your time.
> 
> Why?
> Because the audience in this thread don't really want an answer.
> They want you to put up an answer so they can mock you.
> 
> Imagine having 350 million different forms of competing currencies. How would you know the exchange rates for all of them?
> you pointing out the need for a standard in weights and measures. But see- that is law and order.
> ...


 *Does the term "projection" have any meaning for you, AT ALL?* 

*Psychology.* *the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.**Psychoanalysis. such an ascription relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling.*
*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projection*

----------


## torchbearer

Ron's use of competing currencies is a method of destroying the monopoly of the fed reserve.
It is hoped, that such a bill would lead to a gold standard versus fiat standard competition. one type versus another.
Which would destroy the fed.
But, what you will get if it is truly competing currencies is what we had under the articles of confederation.
Which leads us back to where?

What the constitution states.
So- why not just follow the constitution. It was written for a reason. Do we need to rediscover that reason by remaking the same mistakes over again?

----------


## Elwar

> *I believe the SCOTUS has ruled previously that the Preamble has NO effect in "law" ( so called ).   When it starts out with a flat out LIE, you can be pretty confident that you're in deep doo doo.*


I was referring to the power to tax (direct unapportioned taxes) for national defense and the "General Welfare".

----------


## Kraig

> Ron's use of competing currencies is a method of destroying the monopoly of the fed reserve.
> It is hoped, that such a bill would lead to a gold standard versus fiat standard competition. one type versus another.
> Which would destroy the fed.
> But, what you will get if it is truly competing currencies is what we had under the articles of confederation.
> Which leads us back to where?
> 
> What the constitution states.
> So- why not just follow the constitution. It was written for a reason. Do we need to rediscover that reason by remaking the same mistakes over again?


Austrian economics teaches this:

Fiat currency < commodity backed currency (such as gold backed) < natural currencies completely untouched by the state (which can just as easily be commodity backed, and the successful ones probably would be)

Did you actually read the link I posted from Ron Paul where he advocates competing currencies?  Not once does he say or hint that he only wants competing currencies as a utilitarian method to destroy the Federal Reserve's monopoly, but he does say this:

"In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral."

Spend more time at mises.org IMO, or just read the article I posted and listen to the speech by Lew Rockwell.

----------


## torchbearer

> Austrian economics teaches this:
> 
> Fiat currency < commodity backed currency (such as gold backed) < natural currencies completely untouched by the state (which can just as easily be commodity backed, and the successful ones probably would be)
> 
> Did you actually read the link I posted from Ron Paul where he advocates competing currencies?  Not once does he say or hint that he only want's competing currencies as a utilitarian method to destroy the Federal Reserve's monopoly, but he does say this:
> 
> "In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral."
> 
> Spend more time at mises.org IMO, or just read the article I posted and listen to the speech by Lew Rockwell.


How would he be recieved if he stated:
Dear Madam Speaker, In order to destroy the federal reserve, I propose we have competing currencies"

That isn't how politics works, and ron is a politician.

Same goes with his stance on illegal immigration. (he is actually for open borders)

Did you read the thread posted on here that had the Libertarian to Conservative translations?
LPers who are successful are practiced at selling their ideas by 'translating' them into different ways.

Ron's first position was to return to the gold standard.
No one listened. They called him kooky.
So then he pushes competing currencies... which would lead back to the gold standard.

Ron's first position is to abolish the fed.
No one is supporting the bill.
So then he pushes an audit the fed bill... which would lead back to abolishing the fed.

Ron's first position is that free people can travel freely.
Open borders with a welfare state is a problem.
So then, ron pushes that we uphold the law and enforce the borders.
But at the same time states that if we didn't have a welfare state, we'd be welcoming these people to come here and produce.



Are you starting to understand?

----------


## Kraig

> How would he be recieved if he stated:
> Dear Madam Speaker, In order to destroy the federal reserve, I propose we have competing currencies"
> 
> That isn't how politics works, and ron is a politician.
> 
> Same goes with his stance on illegal immigration. (he is actually for open borders)
> 
> Did you read the thread posted on here that had the Libertarian to Conservative translations?
> LPers who are successful are practiced at selling their ideas by 'translating' them into different ways.
> ...


I'm beginning to understand that you think you can read Ron Paul's mind and that you know he never disagrees with you.  

I respond with a speech from his own mouth and you respond with a bat $#@! theory as to why he made the speech.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm beginning to understand that you think you can read Ron Paul's mind and that you know he never disagrees with you.


I can produce evidence of everything I stated.
I've been following Ron Paul since the mid 90's. I have an extensive collection of his speeches.
I do know his positions, because he has stated them. (On video speaking the ideas, not written down- where ghost writers come in)
In some interviews, he even states the things i've posted.
I have a 1000 youtubes to go through, but I can show you the proof.

But what then? Will you listen to what I say? No.
YOu will use one of these -> 
And go back to your hole in the wall.

----------


## torchbearer

Here is an easy one for me to find because I just used it the other day:
Someone was stating that Ron Paul was for the fence on the mexican border(because he voted for a bill that had the fence in it) and he is a hard core protectionist of the borders.
I showed them this clip from the debates:
Here is his comment on the fence at 4:45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo
Keep listening to the 6 minute mark, he also states the other things i've put in this thread.

----------


## Kraig

> I can produce evidence of everything I stated.
> I've been following Ron Paul since the mid 90's. I have an extensive collection of his speeches.
> I do know his positions, because he has stated them.
> In some interviews, he even states the things i've posted.
> I have a 1000 youtubes to go through, but I can show you the proof.
> 
> But what then? Will you listen to what I say? No.
> YOu will use one of these -> 
> And go back to your hole in the wall.


You are the one that entered this discussion with a personal attack, with no argument, with no information.  With NOTHING but your opinion standing on it's own.

Well it doesn't matter, I have seen stuff like this too:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co.../cr091002b.htm

I'm just not going to pretend like I know what he is thinking.  In that speech he also cites Lew Rockwell to give credibility to the gold standard, any idea where Lew lies on the issue of competing currencies?

One thing you have made all too clear: "I've been following Ron Paul since the mid 90's."

Stop following.

----------


## Kraig

> Here is an easy one for me to find because I just used it the other day:
> Someone was stating that Ron Paul was for the fence on the mexican border(because he voted for a bill that had the fence in it) and he is a hard core protectionist of the borders.
> I showed them this clip from the debates:
> Here is his comment on the fence at 4:45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo
> Keep listening to the 6 minute mark, he also states the other things i've put in this thread.


We're not talking about a border issue, and I'm sure there's no way in hell that Ron Paul backs competing currencies AND a gold backed dollar.  That would make way too much sense.

----------


## torchbearer

> We're not talking about a border issue, and I'm sure there's no way in hell that Ron Paul backs competing currencies AND a gold backed dollar.  That would make way too much sense.


He had been lobbying for a return to constitutional money long before he started pushing for the competing currencies.
It is simply a change in political tactics.

edit: I know we aren't talking about the border, I'm showing you that people have Ron wrong all the time.
You have to follow him over his career to understand why he is pushing for certain things now.

----------


## Kraig

> He had been lobbying for a return to constitutional money long before he started pushing for the competing currencies.
> It is simply a change in political tactics.
> 
> edit: I know we aren't talking about the border, I'm showing you that people have Ron wrong all the time.
> You have to follow him over his career to understand why he is pushing for certain things now.


In other words you think he was lying in the 2008 speech for a political goal.

----------


## torchbearer

> You are the one that entered this discussion with a personal attack, with no argument, with no information.  With NOTHING but your opinion standing on it's own.
> 
> Well it doesn't matter, I have seen stuff like this too:
> 
> http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co.../cr091002b.htm
> 
> I'm just not going to pretend like I know what he is thinking.  In that speech he also cites Lew Rockwell to give credibility to the gold standard, any idea where Lew lies on the issue of competing currencies?
> 
> One thing you have made all too clear: "I've been following Ron Paul since the mid 90's."
> ...


Where did your education come from?
You were born with it?

If I remember correctly, you point to Lew and Mises... did you not learn from them?
That is following their works. 
So you stop following first.  and one of these for good measure.

----------


## torchbearer

> In other words you think he was lying in the 2008 speech for a political goal.


No- its is a goal, but not the ultimate goal.
Everything leads to something.
If he initially wants to return to constitutional money, but his attempts are rejected.. then a different tact is needed.
Follow his career, and you will see that he is a very smart man. Not a liar.

----------


## Kraig

> No- its is a goal, but not the ultimate goal.
> Everything leads to something.
> If he initially wants to return to constitutional money, but his attempts are rejected.. then a different tact is needed.
> Follow his career, and you will see that he is a very smart man. Not a liar.


Competing currencies would lead to a stable dollar because if there was competition, congress would be forced to compete with everyone else and obviously the fiat currency that is used now wouldn't work.

So lets so say competing currencies are legalized, congress later goes back to a gold backed dollar because they realize a fiat dollar can't compete, what then?  Competing currencies are then outlawed because they already served their purpose?

----------


## Kraig

> Where did your education come from?
> You were born with it?
> 
> If I remember correctly, you point to Lew and Mises... did you not learn from them?
> That is following their works. 
> So you stop following first.  and one of these for good measure.


Of course I was not born with it, but you seem to have rejected EVERY facet of this discussion outside of debating about what Ron Paul thinks.

----------


## torchbearer

> Of course I was not born with it, but you seem to have rejected EVERY facet of this discussion outside of debating about what Ron Paul thinks.


Funny, the top of the header says Ron Paul Forums.com.
How in the hell did I come up with Ron Paul in this discussion?

----------


## Kraig

> Funny, the top of the header says Ron Paul Forums.com.
> How in the hell did I come up with Ron Paul in this discussion?


WTF? I was the one who brought him up in relation to this because I thought that was the only way you would discuss it.  I was wrong though because you still won't discuss it, all you will do is argue over what his true intentions are when he has never said what you are saying.

----------


## torchbearer

> Competing currencies would lead to a stable dollar because if there was competition, congress would be forced to compete with everyone else and obviously the fiat currency that is used now wouldn't work.
> 
> So lets so say competing currencies are legalized, congress later goes back to a gold backed dollar because they realize a fiat dollar can't compete, what then?  Competing currencies are then outlawed because they already served their purpose?


NO- gold/silver back currencies will win out.
Fiat will lose.

But, if we have 100's of different types of gold and silver coins from different banks and mints.
How can a business man keep up with purity and worth of all the different coins?
This leads back to the 'spanish dollar' statement made by the very well written post earlier in this thread.
The need for a standard in weights and measures.
This need leads back to the constitution.

I've already stated this...
And this is the reason why competing currencies will lead us back to where we started in the 1780s.
That is why Ron is pertinent to this discussion. He knows this.. just as well as I know this.

----------


## Kraig

> NO- gold/silver back currencies will win out.
> Fiat will lose.


That is exactly what I said.




> But, if we have 100's of different types of gold and silver coins from different banks and mints.
> How can a business man keep up with purity and worth of all the different coins?
> This leads back to the 'spanish dollar' statement made by the very well written post earlier in this thread.
> The need for a standard in weights and measures.
> This need leads back to the constitution.
> 
> I've already stated this...
> And this is the reason why competing currencies will lead us back to where we started.
> That is why Ron is pertinent to this discussion. He knows this.. just as well as I know this.


Back to my previous question, after the competition leads back to a gold backed dollar, what do you do with all the people who still use/create/prefer a different currency?  Tell them to stop or they'll go to jail?

----------


## torchbearer

> That is exactly what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to my previous question, after the competition leads back to a gold backed dollar, what do you do with all the people who still use/create/prefer a different currency?  Tell them to stop or they'll go to jail?


You won't need to do anything.
The businesses will find it easier to take the standard coin over the other coins.
People will find it easier to buy with the standard coin over the other coins.
Because it is standard. There is no guess work or water/mass test.. or anything else required to have faith in the value of the coin.
Market forces will determine that the standard is more conductive to business among all the states.

----------


## Kraig

> You won't need to do anything.
> The businesses will find it easier to take the standard coin over the other coins.
> People will find it easier to buy with the standard coin over the other coins.
> Because it is standard. There is no guess work or water/mass test.. or anything else required to have faith in the value of the coin.
> Market forces will determine that the standard is more conductive to business among all the states.


So we are in agreement you would just prefer to use the congress backed standard?

----------


## torchbearer

> So we are in agreement you would just prefer to use the congress backed standard?


no-it would be a constitutional backed standard.
the U.S. constitution is above congress.
Congress gets its power from the constitution. Not the other way around.
All we need to do is set the standard. That is it.
They can't create or destroy gold.
The standard should be fixed into the constitution itself, so it will take an act of a super majority of states and congress to change it.

Money would no longer be in the hands of any entity. Its value will be the law.

----------


## Kraig

> no-it would be a constitutional backed standard.
> the U.S. constitution is above congress.
> Congress gets its power from the constitution. Not the other way around.
> All we need to do is set the standard. That is it.
> They can't create or destroy gold.
> The standard should be fixed into the constitution itself, so it will take an act of a super majority of states and congress to change it.
> 
> Money would no longer be in the hands of any entity. Its value will be the law.


So you are saying the standard of weights and measures should be explicitly stated in the constitution rather than delegating that power to congress?

----------


## torchbearer

> So you are saying the standard of weights and measures should be explicitly stated in the constitution rather than delegating that power to congress?


Yes. Congress would debase our own currency if given the chance.
This is quite evident as of their disregard for our fiat currency today.
We can only have a free and prosperous society if we have honest money.
Money that is worth the same today as it will be worth 100 years from now.
Having a savings account would have a true meaning with stable money.

Also- I'd like to have an amendment that forbids the congress to accrue debts on behalf of the tax payers.
It can only spend what the states give them.
This would fix most of our economic problems.

----------


## demolama

I don't know about you guys but I do not want to go around biting into every piece of gold coin I have to make sure its real.... or comparing its size to make sure it hasn't been shaved... and who knows what it was mixed with... copper, zinc, lead... etc to give it that weight.

Pieces of Eight or the Spanish Dollar was in demand because it had a standard and you knew that the minted pieces came from a respectable mint... having anyone make their own coins and you never know what you'll end up with.

----------


## Kraig

> Yes. Congress would debase our own currency if given the chance.
> This is quite evident as of their disregard for our fiat currency today.
> We can only have a free and prosperous society if we have honest money.
> Money that is worth the same today as it will be worth 100 years from now.
> Having a savings account would have a true meaning with stable money.
> 
> Also- I'd like to have an amendment that forbids the congress to accrue debts on behalf of the tax payers.
> It can only spend what the states give them.
> This would fix most of our economic problems.


That is a pretty good setup, especially if 3rd parties are allowed to use different currencies when that is their preference.  I am starting to think we have been arguing over fluff.

----------


## Kraig

> I don't know about you guys but I do not want to go around biting into every piece of gold coin I have to make sure its real.... or comparing its size to make sure it hasn't been shaved... and who knows what it was mixed with... copper, zinc, lead... etc to give it that weight.
> 
> Pieces of Eight or the Spanish Dollar was in demand because it had a standard and you knew that the minted pieces came from a respectable mint... having anyone make their own coins and you never know what you'll end up with.


That is true, with competing currencies you would have to take personal responsibility and research what you are using.  We let anyone start a company and there are still plenty of trustworthy companies out there to choose from, you just have to do a bit of research to find out who they are.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I was referring to the power to tax (direct unapportioned taxes) for national defense and the "General Welfare".


*I was referring to the BS Preamble:*

*We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.*

----------


## Kraig

> *I was referring to the BS Preamble:*
> 
> *We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.*


Any chance you could stay on the topic of competing currencies and the the congressional power to coin money for this thread?  Plenty of other threads can be made to talk about whatever else, I'm sure I would find them interesting too.

----------


## WillieKamm

> *Hamilton married into the Rothschild ( Bank of England ) family.*


 Elizabeth Schuyler?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Elizabeth Schuyler?


*Alexander Hamilton married into the Rothschild family December 14, 1780, Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler [The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, by Allan Hamilton 1910]*
*[It has been reported that there are documents in the British museum that prove Alexander Hamilton received payment from the Rothschilds for his dastardly deeds. Could this payment have been for his involvement in the establishment of a foreign bank in this country, and for convincing Congress to assume the States debts, which would have created a debt obligation binding the United States government and the States to the international bankers?] (**The History Of Lawful Gold And Silver Legal Tender And The Debt Brought On By Unlawful Fiat Paper Money**)*

----------


## WillieKamm

> *Alexander Hamilton married into the Rothschild family December 14, 1780, Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler [The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, by Allan Hamilton 1910]*
> *[It has been reported that there are documents in the British museum that prove Alexander Hamilton received payment from the Rothschilds for his dastardly deeds. Could this payment have been for his involvement in the establishment of a foreign bank in this country, and for convincing Congress to assume the States debts, which would have created a debt obligation binding the United States government and the States to the international bankers?] (**The History Of Lawful Gold And Silver Legal Tender And The Debt Brought On By Unlawful Fiat Paper Money**)*


 That's very interesting and thanks for your prompt reply. I'm always willing to learn. It has been my impression that his wife Elizabeth Schuyler was of Dutch ancestry. Regarding Alexander Hamilton's parentage.


Rachel Fawcett was Alexander Hamilton's mother. She left her first husband, the abusive John Lavien, and later met James Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton's father. Rachel died in 1768 from fever.

James Hamilton, St. was Alexander Hamilton's father. He left Rachel and Alexander in 1766 after discovering that Rachel was still technically married to her husband John Lavien. Although Alexander never saw his father again, the two continued to write until James, Sr.'s death.


I don't see this sinister Rothschild conncection anywhere. If am wrong please show me with verifiable non Alex Jones type tin foil references.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That's very interesting and thanks for your prompt reply. I'm always willing to learn. It has been my impression that his wife Elizabeth Schuyler was of Dutch ancestry. Regarding Alexander Hamilton's parentage.
> 
> 
> Rachel Fawcett was Alexander Hamilton's mother. She left her first husband, the abusive John Lavien, and later met James Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton's father. Rachel died in 1768 from fever.
> 
> James Hamilton, St. was Alexander Hamilton's father. He left Rachel and Alexander in 1766 after discovering that Rachel was still technically married to her husband John Lavien. Although Alexander never saw his father again, the two continued to write until James, Sr.'s death.
> 
> 
> I don't see this sinister Rothschild conncection anywhere. If am wrong please show me with verifiable non Alex Jones type tin foil references.
> ...


*You're welcome.  I find this compelling if not definitive nor conclusive:*

*“Alexander Hamilton married into the Rothschild family December 14, 1780, Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler… [The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, by Allan Hamilton 1910]*

----------


## anaconda

> If you follow Austrian economics you will know that congress never should have been given the power to coin money to begin with, not only that, but it should not have given this power to the states either.  This power should and always should remain in the hands of the people directly via the free market, money should be completely untouched by any form of government.  Not only would this have prevented congress from ever delegating this power to the Federal Reserve, the natural currencies that would have emerged in a free market would have been far superior even to the so called "gold standard" that was used before 1913.
> 
> I think most of the founders would agree with this in principle, especially Thomas Jefferson, but as great as their wisdom was they did not have access to the great work of Mises and others to learn from which we are now privy to - and they were not omnipotent.  This is just one example of how we need to look forward rather than backwards, it doesn't make any sense to go back to the same exact document got us where we are today.
> 
> If you want to learn more about natural money, here is a good article from mises.org:
> 
> http://mises.org/story/3340
> 
> There is also a great lecture by Lew Rockwell that covers this called The Gold Dollar:
> ...


But isn't printing currency other than gold & silver coinage unconstitutional anyway? Isn't the problem with the Constitution elsewhere? Like, why is it unenforceable?

----------


## Kraig

> But isn't printing currency other than gold & silver coinage unconstitutional anyway? Isn't the problem with the Constitution elsewhere? Like, why is it unenforceable?


My point is that even if it is enforceable, even if you don't let congress delegate the power to the federal reserve, it is still flawed because the best solution for the market is to allow the market to create it's own currencies.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Any chance you could stay on the topic of competing currencies and the the congressional power to coin money for this thread? Plenty of other threads can be made to talk about whatever else, I'm sure I would find them interesting too.


 *If you'll notice, I replied to a previous post directed to me.   Isn't the topic * *Major flaw in US constitution** ?*

----------


## Kraig

> *If you'll notice, I replied to a previous post directed to me.   Isn't the topic * *Major flaw in US constitution** ?*


..yeah one specific flaw but whatever

----------


## Truth Warrior

> ..yeah one specific flaw but whatever


 *Only one FLAW per thread is allowed, hunh?   Whatever.  When did you go on the payroll?*

----------


## Kraig

> *Only one FLAW per thread is allowed, hunh?   Whatever.  When did you go on the payroll?*


Forget it, this thread was just an epic fail, should have picked a better title.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Forget it, this thread was just an epic fail, should have picked a better title.


 * From the looks of things, so was the CONstitution.* 

*'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr*

----------


## torchbearer

You wouldn't have to enforce a standard gold coin. the free market would go with it.
Just put in a penalty of death for any person, including government officials who distort the value of the standard coinage.
To be carried out by any willing person without trial if a vote of record is recorded.
Constitution enforced.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You wouldn't have to enforce a standard gold coin. the free market would go with it.
> Just put in a penalty of death for any person, including government officials who distort the value of the standard coinage.
> To be carried out by any willing person without trial if a vote of record is recorded.
> Constitution enforced.


 *That merely brings up the "joke" OATH members of the US military are ALL REQUIRED to solemnly swear to uphold. *

----------


## torchbearer

> *That merely brings up the "joke" OATH members of the US military are ALL REQUIRED to solemnly swear to uphold. *


I don't have to swear an oath to carry out the law.
Just make it law, and no congressman will dare cross the constitution.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I don't have to swear an oath to carry out the law.
> Just make it law, and no congressman will dare cross the constitution.


 *Don't they ALL take an OATH to uphold the CONstitution also?  How's that working out?* 

*How about a "law" ( so called ) just prohibiting crime across the board, under a MANDATORY penalty of death ?  Granted, it just might get and be a bit messy for a couple of generations or so.* 

*"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain, 1894*

----------


## Mesogen

> I was referring more along the lines to the fact that the preamble begins with the words "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" That's a grammatical $#@!up, because something can't be more perfect. It's either perfect or it's not.


Perfect in this context does not mean "without flaw" it means "complete." They wanted to form a more complete union than existed under the Articles of Confederation.





> * "We the People" is a LIE. They did no such thing. *


Really. They should have said "We the people in this room..."

----------


## Mesogen

> *Don't they ALL take an OATH to uphold the CONstitution also?  How's that working out?*


It probably doesn't work out so well because they swear an oath while holding a book that tells them never to swear oaths.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Really. They should have said "We the people in this room..."


*Index to the Antifederalist Papers*
*http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm*

----------


## PaulaGem

I've asked this question before.   People who scream too loudly about gold and silver scare me, I suspect them of exploiting the fear of others. (This does not include Dr. Paul.)

Gold is not a rare metal, it is only rare in refinable forms at this time.  We are in the midst of a world that is changing more radically and more rapidly than during the  "industrial revolution".  Computer science has put us there.

The next great shock will come when biotechnology becomes the standard method of manufacture.   At that time I believe the price of gold will plummet because of biotech based refining techniques.

How could a stable currency be built on an unstable commodity?

----------


## acptulsa

> The next great shock will come when biotechnology becomes the standard method of manufacture.   At that time I believe the price of gold will plummet because of biotech based refining techniques.


Interesting.  Don't know much about this.  Have a link?  I'm having trouble envisioning gold that isn't 'refinable'.  I do know that it's an element, and short of using a collider to change the structure of it at the atomic level it can't be created.  Biotech won't ever be a method of _creating_ an element.  I also know that there's very good reason to be scared of the state of the FRN right now.  China could very well send it into collapse--and might just do so, if they see an advantage in it.

----------


## PaulaGem

Just remembering what I've read elsewhere. I should have said forms that are refinable in an economically and environmentally practical manner.

Gold occurs dissolved in seawater, and up here in the hills in colorado there are slag heaps full of it.   Arsenic was used to refine the gold originally and just cleaning up these toxic heaps biochemically could yield tons of gold.

----------


## acptulsa

That will take time, and 'tons' is an overstatement.  It could be slightly inflationary, but it won't yield enough fast enough to have a massive effect.  Another 'cash4gold' type phenomenon would have more of an effect on the supply than that would.

----------


## Kraig

> How could a stable currency be built on an unstable commodity?


That's why you don't put all your eggs in one basket and let people create and choose as many different currencies as they want.

----------


## silverhawks

> I've asked this question before.   People who scream too loudly about gold and silver scare me, I suspect them of exploiting the fear of others. (This does not include Dr. Paul.)
> 
> Gold is not a rare metal, it is only rare in refinable forms at this time.  We are in the midst of a world that is changing more radically and more rapidly than during the  "industrial revolution".  Computer science has put us there.
> 
> The next great shock will come when biotechnology becomes the standard method of manufacture.   At that time I believe the price of gold will plummet because of biotech based refining techniques.
> 
> How could a stable currency be built on an unstable commodity?


I'd imagine because if anything gold is going to become more stable as time goes on; up to a point. After all, it is a practical as well as a precious metal,  currently used for a lot more than jewelry or investment and we seem to be finding more and more uses for it, which is going to drive the demand up rather than down. At least until we get functional and practical nanotechnological processes for assembling it at the atomic level...but at that point, I personally believe we will see a new Industrial Revolution on an un-paralleled scale...end of money, anyone?    And most current research in that area seems to indicate that we will still find more uses for it, as the properties of elements seem to change at different atomic scales.

At first glance, biochemical sifting of waste for gold seems equivalent to the 49'ers panning for it; but that, or gold recycling from electronic scrap or waste electroplating could be a good business to get into.

----------


## PaulaGem

http://www.tms.org/Meetings/Specialt...ancemailer.pdf

10:30 AM
The Use of Biohydrometallurgy for Tails Retreatment in Mining and Smelting Enterprises of the Republic of Uzbekistan: M. Sagdieva1; S. Borminskii1; K. Sanakulov2;1Institute of Microbiology, AS of Uzbekistan, 7b. A. Kadiry St, 700128, Tashkent Uzbekistan; 2Almalyk Mining and Metallurgical Company, 58, A. Timur Av., 702400, Almalyk Uzbekistan 

The modern defi ciency in source of raw materials of nonferrous,rear and noble metals raise a question of the possibility for searching new reserves of mineral raw-materials that the wastes of hydrometallurgical enterprises. In this connection we carried out investigations dealing with the use of biotechnological methods for fl otation tails retreatment in
Almalyk Mining and metallurgical company. On the basis of conducted experiments, the flotation tails were found to be used for retreatment by means of bacterial leaching approach
that was used for copper leaching and gold striping out of sulphide minerals containing copper and iron. It was determined the main parameters of Bioleaching and, on the basis of data obtained, the developed technology was used and tested in laboratory, pilot and semi-industrial experiments.

The results of conducted tests have shown that copper extraction amounted to 68-75%, sulphide mineral destruction of 78-82%, gold extraction with the use of thiosulphate leaching
from bacterially digested material of 85-90% and silver of 58-60%. Thus, the technology under investigation is of great perspectives for retreatment of the wastes in hydrometallurgical
enterprises and will allow extending the source of raw materials in Uzbekistan.

***** High percentages.   Historic method yield very low percentages.   Have not found more specific figures yet.

----------


## PaulaGem

I don't want to derail this discussion , but I also felt a little silly bringing up something and not being able to back it up.   Best article I've seen yet:

"Even at the conservative estimates of 10 ppt of gold in seawater, there is a great deal of gold in solution in the oceans. Humankind has unearthed perhaps a total of 3.3 billion ounces of gold over the course of history, an amount equivalent To a cube of gold 55 feet on a side (Dworetzky 1988), but the sea water of the Earth's oceans contain about 25 billion ounces of gold (Burk 1989). If the ability of some of these bacteria to concentrate gold around their cell membranes to the degree that they form massively dense agglomerations of hollow gold microtubuals, as the evidence suggests, then perhaps a similar bacterium may find a practical application in sea water. "

I believe oil will crash and burn - hydrogen will probably make it obsolete - and if we are silly enough to base an economic system on gold it will do the same shortly afterwards.  

Above from http://goldfever.com/gold_sea.htm

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't want to derail this discussion.


Well, yes, a thread about the Constitution isn't exactly the place for this.  That said, there are two things you need to remember.  One, getting that tiny scrap of gold out of suspension in sea water could well cost more than a thousand dollars an ounce.  If so, there's why no one is trying it.  Two, there's _no way_ a human can get at every gallon of sea water.  There's actually quite a lot of sea water at depths that would crush any submarine ever built.  And, of course, once you get the gold out of the salt water there's not much to do with it but put it back--thereby diluting the gold content of all the rest of it.  The result--diminishing returns.

I don't think anyone could get enough of it fast enough to cause the sort of hyperinflation they have in Zimbabwe--or even the kind of inflation we'll be seeing right here at home this summer.  It isn't exactly as easy as printing paper.  Not even with a hundred thousand gold-snatching seawater-processing ships on all the world's oceans working twenty-four hours a day.  There's quite a bit of water out there.  I don't think you appreciate the scale of what you propose...

----------


## PaulaGem

is that radical technologies will replace the old.   That it is why it's necessary for "them" to put democracy in a coffin as soon as possible.

Wealth used to come from the land and development of land - now it comes from the mind.   Unless minds and governments are controlled before this comes to fruition "they" will never be able to control things as they are used to controlling them  because of the  speed of development and change.  The problem posed by free speech and the internet will become just a small part of the overall system spiraling out of "their" control.

I guess that's why I brought the gold discussion into this in the first place.  To highlight the escalation of growth knowledge and technology that is about to launch civilization into a new era.

I believe you seriously underestimate the power of biotech processing, it won't be about ships refining seawater.   It will be biological bombs that are dropped in gold rich areas to collect the gold and then retrieved at a later date.  Generally biotech manufacturing is environmentally benign, but even then they could still disrupt the balance of nature in those areas and cause real environmental damage.   If "they" control the technology that won't matter though, will it?

----------


## PaulaGem

To get back on track - yes perhaps it is time to start thinking about a "new constitution",   but I think we're going to have to aggressively defend our rights under the old one in order to get there.

----------


## DAaaMan64

Should we talk about any flaws in the Constitution? Or just stick to the OP's issue?

----------


## DAaaMan64

Fine, I'll say something.

Personally, I think the Bill of Rights sucks.  It should have been more thorough(describing more rights) as well as being straight forward.  I think it should also defined what a right was to mean.  For example, as far I as my studies tell me, a natural right is:

Any given action that can be practiced without imposing on the rights(or his/her desired actions) of another.  I.E. you can't have a right to a house because it requires the rights of a carpenter.  You can get yourself a gun because ownership does not impose on another in anyway. But this is an untested idea, so feel free to tear it apart. 

Also, the Federalist made an interesting prediction about why putting a Bill of Rights might be bad for us:




> Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:
> I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[6]



Interesting to say the least.  Thoughts?

----------


## PaulaGem

> Any given action that can be practiced without imposing on the rights(or his/her desired actions) of another.  I.E. you can't have a right to a house because it requires the rights of a carpenter.  You can get yourself a gun because ownership does not impose on another in anyway. But this is an untested idea, so feel free to tear it apart.



It seems that that would open the door wider for the courts and give greater variance to the interpretation of the rights of the individual.   In some states they could say gun ownership does pose an inherent risk to all, including the family of the gun owner.

----------


## Richard A Hamblen

The Constitution in theory is wonderful, but its actual practice is another matter. Consider the preamble to the Bill of Rights (see below). It is pretty explicit that it supersedes or clarifies any of the provisions of the original Constitution which the ten articles address. And you can't get much more explicit than the 9th and 10th Amendments. Of course Lincoln found a way around its restrictions--he called out the troops. Funny how schools don't teach the preamble to the Bill of Rights when they address the Constitution.

"Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

*THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution*[emphasis added]

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If you follow Austrian economics you will know that congress never should have been given the power to coin money to begin with, not only that, but it should not have given this power to the states either.  This power should and always should remain in the hands of the people directly via the free market, money should be completely untouched by any form of government.  Not only would this have prevented congress from ever delegating this power to the Federal Reserve, the natural currencies that would have emerged in a free market would have been far superior even to the so called "gold standard" that was used before 1913.
> 
> I think most of the founders would agree with this in principle, especially Thomas Jefferson, but as great as their wisdom was they did not have access to the great work of Mises and others to learn from which we are now privy to - and they were not omnipotent.  This is just one example of how we need to look forward rather than backwards, it doesn't make any sense to go back to the same exact document got us where we are today.
> 
> If you want to learn more about natural money, here is a good article from mises.org:
> 
> http://mises.org/story/3340
> 
> There is also a great lecture by Lew Rockwell that covers this called The Gold Dollar:
> ...


If this were true, there wouldn't have been a Revolutionary War.  The British printed money to finance an army that attacked us and occupied our land.  If the Continental Congress hadn't printed money, then George Washington would not have had enough supplies to win the war.

Mises is the one who needs to look backward.  Mises is all theory, not reality.  You need to learn the lessons of history, or you will repeat them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If this were true, there wouldn't have been a Revolutionary War.  The British printed money to finance an army that attacked us and occupied our land.  If the Continental Congress hadn't printed money, then George Washington would not have had enough supplies to win the war.
> 
> Mises is the one who needs to look backward.  Mises is all theory, not reality.  You need to learn the lessons of history, or you will repeat them.


He was actually correct.  If sound money principles and peaceful secession had been applied, we wouldn't be stuck with the leviathan State (there are other articles around RPFs about this subject that are good too)

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> He was actually correct.  If sound money principles and peaceful secession had been applied, we wouldn't be stuck with the leviathan State (there are other articles around RPFs about this subject that are good too)


No, Mises just said that the power to coin money should not be a power of the government.

But if that were true, the Continental Congress could not have provided enough supplies to George Washington so he could defeat the British.  Nor could the states either, as under the Mises doctrine, they can't print money either.

I'll bet that George Washington had a better grasp of what was going on in 1776, than Mises.

Mises is, frankly, anti-Constitution, and anti-Founding Fathers.  He is even anti-Continental Congress.  His ideas are basically just idle brainstorms, they have no basis in reality.

The Founding Fathers dealt in reality, which is what I deal in, as does Ron Paul.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

*Speech in the Continental Congress on Revenue*

_February 21, 1783_

Mr. Madison said that he had observed throughout the proceedings of Congress relative to the establishment of such funds that the power delegated to Congress by the confederation had been very differently construed by different members & that this difference of construction had materially affected their reasonings & opinions on the several propositions which had been made; that in particular it had been represented by sundry members that Congress was merely an Executive body; and therefore that it was inconsistent with the principles of liberty & the spirit of the Constitution, to submit to them a permanent revenue which wd. be placing the purse & the sword in the same hands; that he wished the true doctrine of the confederation to be ascertained as it might perhaps remove some embarrassments; and towards that end would offer his ideas on the subject.

He said that he did not conceive in the first place that the opinion was sound that the power of Congress in cases of revenue was in no respect Legislative, but merely Executive: and in the second place that admitting the power to be Executive a permanent revenue collected & dispensed by them in the discharge of the debts to wch. it sd. be appropriated, would be inconsistent with the nature of an Executive body, or dangerous to the liberties of the republic.

As to the first opinion he observed that by the articles of Confederation Congs. had clearly & expressly the right to fix the quantum of revenue necessary for the public exigences, & to require the same from the States respectively in proportion to the value of their land; that the requisitions thus made were a law to the States, as much as the acts of the latter for complying with them were a law to their individual members: that the fœderal constitution was as sacred & obligatory as the internal constitutions of the several States; and that nothing could justify the States in disobeying acts warranted by it, but some previous abuse or infraction on the part of Congs.; that as a proof that the power of fixing the quantum & making requisitions of money, was considered as a legislative power over the purse, he would appeal to the proposition made by the British Minister of giving this power to the B. Parliamt. & leaving to the American assemblies the privilege of complying in their own modes; & to the reasonings of Congress & the several States on that proposition. He observed further that by the articles of Confederation was delegated to Congs. a right to borrow money indefinitely, and emit bills of Credit which was a species of borrowing, for repayment & redemption of which the faith of the States was pledged & their legislatures constitutionally bound. He asked whether these powers were reconcileable with the idea that Congress was a body merely Executive? He asked what would be thought in G. B. from whose constitution our Political reasonings were so much drawn, of an attempt to prove that a power of making requisitions of money on the Parliament, & of borrowing money for discharge of which the Parlt. sd. be bound, might be annexed to the Crown without changing its quality of an Executive branch; and that the leaving to the Parliamt. the mode only of complying with the requisitions of the Crown, would be leaving to it its supreme & exclusive power of Legislation?

As to the second point he referred again to the British Constitution & the mode in which provision was made for the public debts; observing that although the Executive had no authority to contract a debt; yet that when a debt had been authorized or admitted by the parliament a permanent & irrevocable revenue was granted by the Legislature, to be collected & dispensed by the Executive; and that this practice had never been deemed a subversion of the Constitution or a dangerous association of a power over the purse with the power of the Sword.

If these observations were just as he concieved them to be, the establishment of a permanent revenue not by any assumed authority of Congress, but by the authority of the States at the recommendation of Congs: to be collected & applied by the latter to the discharge of the public debts, could not be deemed inconsistent with the spirit of the fœderal constitution, or subversive of the principles of liberty; and that all objections drawn from such a supposition ought to be withdrawn. Whether other objections of sufficient weight might not lie agst. such an establishmt. was another question. For his part altho' for various reasons* he had wished for such a plan as most eligible, he had never been sanguine that it was practicable & the discussions which had taken place had finally satisfied him that it would be necessary to limit the call for a general revenue to duties on commerce & to call for the deficiency in the most permanent way that could be reconciled with a revenue established within each State separately & appropriated to the Common Treasury. He said the rule which he had laid down to himself in this business was to concur in every arrangemt that sd appear necessary for an honorable & just fulfilment of the public engagements, & in no measure tending to augment the power of Congress which sd appear to be unnecessary, and particularly disclaimed the idea of perpetuating a public debt.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Among other reasons privately weighing with him, he had observed that many of the most respectable people of America supposed the preservation of the Confederacy, essential to secure the blessings of the revolution, and permanent funds for discharging debts essential to the preservation of Union. A disappomtmt to this class wd certainly abate their ardor & in a critical emergence might incline them to prefer some political connection with G B as a necessary cure for our internal instability, again. Without permanent & general funds he did not concieve that the danger of convulsions from the army could be effectually obviated, lastly he did not think that any thing wd be so likely to prevent disputes among the States with the calamities consequent on them. The States were jealous of each other, each supposing itself to be on the whole a creditor to the others. The Eastern States in particular thought themselves so with regard to the S States (see Mr Ghorum in the debates of this day). If general funds were not introduced it was not likely the balances wd be ever be discharged, even if they sd be liquidated. The consequence wd be a rupture of the confederacy. The E States wd at sea be powerful & rapacious, the S opulent & weak. This wd be a temptation, the demands on the S Sts would be an occasion, Reprisals wd be instituted, Foreign aid would be called in by first the weaker, then the stronger side, & finally both be made subservient to the wars & politics of Europe.

_http://www.constitution.org/jm/17830221_revenue.htm_

This is reality, what James Madison dealt in.  Mises deals in fantasy.

----------

