- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
This video has nothing to do with covid. The video is centered about how we've come to accept lawlessness from government as common practice. Law on the boijs being misrepresented and us being illegally taxed and hit with fees.
It us very interesting and revealing to see how we've been coerced into accepting illegal and unconstitutional conduct to be used against us.
Citizen vs individual. The Constitution only applies to Citizens. It recognizes individual rights, but its authority only applies to Citizens of the United States of America. This guy tries to just blow past this, but it is an important point of jurisdiction.
If you're going to make the pitch that individual rights are guarded by the Constitution, one must also recognize that when talking about legitimacy one must consider who is trying to take the action. The principle of Federalism states that the Federal Government is supreme over matters which it has authority over, but those which are reserved to the States (the majority) make the Federal Government's imposition illegitimate.
The claim that the Constitution guarantees free travel is misunderstood to say it politely. That clause was written to prevent States from prohibiting or taxing travellers coming from other States. Such taxes and travel restrictions were considered fractious and undermined the principle that the States should be "United." What about toll roads? This person's interpretation would certainly apply to them as well, would it not?
Profit motive? I do agree with the commenter that the profit motive is irrelevant and not just because any such is absent from the interstate travel clause. Does one profit from going to work? Does one profit by getting groceries? Does one profit from mere sight-seeing? The answer is YES. If we did not see a benefit (or profit) from driving somewhere, we wouldn't do it just to waste gas and impose wear-and-tear on the vehicle!
Questions on the regulation of travel. Is he seriously going to argue that no regulation whatsoever is needed on the roads? No traffic laws even as simple as which side of the road to drive on? This one may start as well-meaning objection, but needs to be critically examined rather than just as a knee-jerk opposition just because he doesn't agree with the overall point of the commentary.
At this point, I'm just going to say that while I understand why he wants to make these arguments, a more careful and rational approach with less emotional objectionism is called for.
I was introduced to the idea a long time ago but what makes this video valuable, is the application of the law in real life...although, I don't think I'd have the patients this guy had...I would like to have this conversation with the local constabulary in a (non pull over and stop position).
Still, it would be an intimidating stance to take considering, even if you right, you could end up with your car impounded and sitting in a cell until its sorted.
I don't know how it should be structured, but there should be some consequences for police who detain people for no good reason, even for the incorrect reason that rights are for protecting criminals. If you give gov't the power to stop people who are going about their business and insist they answer questions, the power will inevitably be abused.