And here I was taught and believed that the Bureau of Printing and Engraving responded to the mandates of Congress through the Department of the Treasury for the printing of fiat monies. Silly me.

There is a clear distinction between what is legal and what is lawful. The word lawful implies what history has found to be moral and just, and pertains to what we perceive as the common law. The word legal relates to what is legislatively declared to be the law.

Condense law to its lowest common denominator, you have on the one hand cause and effect, which relates to the common law, and what constitutes a harmonious society; and on the other hand you have agreement of the parties. That too can result in a harmonious society. Where the two diverge is when two parties agree to commit unlawful acts, such as plunder ones neighbor. Under the common law that is not tolerated. Under the civil law, that is encouraged; and therefore under the civil law unlawful acts are declared legal.

When we speak of the civil law we speak of the ancient Roman Civil law. Check Oxford dictionary of the English language. Civil law is another form of feudalism. Rather than have a king as a ruler, you have a group of oligarchs. Civil law is foreign law to these united States of America.

The law form authorized by the Constitution is the ancient common law. The Northwest Ordinance recognizes the same in stating that the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories are to forever enjoy their actions brought according to the course of the common law.

The United States Congress is an interface between the inhabitants of these united States and the Monarchies of Europe. Congress exercises commercial powers. For whom does it exercise them? We presume they do so for the inhabitants of the various states.

Examining who benefits from the exercise of Congressional powers one would come to a different conclusion.The United States is a commercial venture.These united States describes an association of people joined for the purpose of mutual protection and the declaration of what is acceptable behavior. The people are governed by the precepts of the common law.

Legislate = to make law = to enter into agreements (to contract) for the purpose of creating or maintaining a public utility. Legislative branch decides what is to be accomplished and at what cost.Executive branch is the party contracting with the Legislative branch to accomplish a public utility.

Legislation is binding upon the executive branch only, and not the people, unless the people by contract or application join the executive branch, or worse yet, create the illusion that they are property of the public realm.

Look up the words resident, subject and citizen in a law dictionary. A description of something that is manifest in the physical world is called actual. What is real belongs to the abstract, contrary to common usage. The word real is short for the word realm. Hence real estate is estate of the realm.

And titles in real estate are described in abstracts of title.Through confusion of words and phrases, the people have been deceived into believing that they are bound by legislation. Yet, anyone in and around the courts for any great length could tell you that officers of the court do not abide by legislative edicts or rules of the court if they can get away with not doing so.

Thus, we can describe law as having the following attributes, all of which can be summarized in the phrase: agreement of the parties.The law is whatever you are allowed to get away with -- and the corollary, the law is whatever you allow someone else to get away with.

The law is whatever you can get someone to believe the law is -- and the corollary, the law is whatever someone else can get you to believe the law is.These describe the relationship of law between two parties. The implications are obvious when the State is one of those parties.

So, the question arises, "Can the state, a fiction, have an agreement with someone who is actual?" I think not. Hence an interface must be devised. That interface is called the person.

It has never been unlawful for men and women to use gold or silver coin as money. It has never been lawful to force another to use any other medium of exchange absent prior consent in which there has been full disclosure and a valuable consideration exchanged.

Yet, while persons are creations of the state, the state can declare whatever it wants to be used as money, and persons must comply. For that reason it is imperative that you be convinced that you are a person, and that legal tender laws apply to you.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Excellent. Our feedback friend Iddy provided us with some information along these same lines recently.

I don't know how to contact Dr Paul so I will pass this thought on to you. Since it is really impractical to expect folks to carry gold and silver coins around, why can't we just encourage the US, Canada, Australia, whoever to establish a gold standard?

Actually I can answer my own question - to put through a gold standard would require the cooperation of the government and the central bank and I'm sure they don't want to do what is good for the people but not for themselves.

By the way, do you know where the word 'politics' came from? It is a combining of two words - 'poly', meaning 'many' and 'tics' which are obnoxious, blood sucking, insects. Except for Dr Paul, of course.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thank you for the etymology of politics. We did know, but some of our readers might not have.

In a society using a gold and silver-based standard, people would likely carry around paper NOTES that were acceptable at various local and regional businesses. The notes would be issued by the warehouses, restaurants and other entities that housed the gold and silver that people stored.

@Gunter"Do you find Paul to be pro-active enough?"

I find that we are collectively in a false alternate reality where it is assumed that political debate discussing fact and reason or even using force will prevail.

It is falsely assumed that the various intellectual positions will ultimately converge on truth. They will not, since the debate, (and truth) so far as statists are concerned is already over and they have lost by current events and historical reality (watch them closely and you can see their terror).

Their point is to confuse matters, create diversions and confuse everybody into believing the statist position is "necessary" and has merit. Apart from the economic benefits, war serves the purpose of keeping us focussed on the wizard and not the "man behind the curtain, madly lulling levers".

Plus, terror is a perceived survival threat, interfering with the ability to engage in rational thought which requires stability, time and accurate information. Ron Paul makes rational arguments and "we the people" should be able to connect the dots and back him up.

What statist fraudsters really fear is a significant percentage of the population being intelligent enough to KNOW (and act) according to the truth that spawned the first renaissance: We live in an action precedes consequence reality. Nothing is REAL until it manifests as a measurable force / thing in physical reality. All else is conjecture, speculation and mysticism.

This brought down those who claimed the will of god himself to rationalize their false power. Among the profound implications of this truth is: We are already free. We can do anything allowed by the laws of physics. The only choice of others, organized force included is what they choose to do in response.

The "give me freedom" argument is falsely framed. It is really "stop sanctioning me when I choose according to my natural freedom". The real question of law becomes "what actions (choices) should be sanctioned"?

So, elites have made choices.

Your question really is: "what should be done in response?"

Bear in mind that elites rationalize self-defensive acts into offensive acts (demonize their prey) which fools believe and elites use this to acquire more power (essence of terror meme).

So, pro-active violence is definitely out. The key is to make sure that "crime does not pay". So, starve the leech by making their aggressions unprofitable. Collectively, we are already doing this, as can be seen by planetary economic implosion.

Assuming elite goals are not Luddite / Malthusian, and they actually want an economy to prey on, this should be sufficient. "Mathematics Of Rule" proves that "crime does not pay", even if the law remains criminal:

http://www.cli.gs/MathematicsOfRule

So, "duck and cover" and meet all predatory behavior with as high a cost to aggressors as you peacefully can. For example, dispute all state fines for "regulatory infractions" in court, defending yourself (don't feed legal "profession").

Even if you lose, you have used asymmetrical warfare and their costs are far higher than yours. Above all, don't fall for "Its cheaper to just give in".

High minded moral arguments aside, all of human behavior resolves to choice in pursuit of goals and "motivational economics" of choice. It not about words, its about action inevitably leading to consequence.

Statists have defined matters such that they choose action (and profit) and others pay for the consequences. Hope this helps. No "knight in shining armor" is going to save us. It is up to "we, the people", always has been, always will be.

@bill ross;

From your culumn "The Rule of Law." The 'rule of law' is the highest law of mankind. All other laws are subservient and cannot contradict the 'rule of law.' All laws contradicting this including constitutional are an offense to mankind's collective survival and must be fought and destroyed. By saying "must be fought and destroyed" you are implying pro-activity. What can be done to pro-actively fight the perversion of the rule of law? Do you find Paul to be pro-active enough? Or am I just being to impatient?

Ron Paul speaks the truth in a way that anyone could understand. No wonder the mass media has marginalized him. They know once truth gets out of the bag it's very expensive to put it back in. They would rather that the glut continue till it collapses from it's own weight. Even though sustainable balance seems to be against human nature, some people manage to do it for themselves. The elite have always oppressed the population by concealing knowledge of how to live without them. Truth does set you free. Free press is the blood of freedom, thanks for the daily infusion.

The progressives are destroying the constitution and are willing partners with the the Fed. Thomas Jefferson understood the dangers of a central bank.

"If a central Bank is ever created in America-through Inflation and deflation the Bankers will rob Americans."

That is pretty clear and clearly what is happening today. The one party system controlled not by the people but by the power elite continues aggressively down the same path. The manipulation machine is running full bore and the printing press are working 24 hours a day. Something has got to give.

Thanks Dr Paul for you continuous work for true liberty. I will look forward to meeting Dr. Paul on the famed Jekyll Island this month.

Click to view link

"defeatism in Paul's words"

A good summary of what Ron Paul (and all of us), in his own words is up against:

Click to view link

Failure is not an OPTION, which is the attitude I get from Ron Paul. And, if you must criticize, how about something a bit more objective than "feel"?

Predators cannot win, since their very success dooms them by collapsing productive activity. Freedom and peace can win, since that is the only viable path to survival, a lesson reluctantly conceded, after much violence by our far wiser ancestors. If the violence must be repeated, the result must be the same. Slavery and servitude cannot work.

Crime does not pay since it collapses civilizations and consumes criminals as well as the honest. The perps may be stupid, but they do want to survive.

We could fix these problems instantly by insisting on return of the "rule of law" and defending ourselves:

http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLaw

In their abysmal ignorance they laughed the good doctor off the stage at the debates in the last election. (Paraphrasing Mark Twain ...) It's not so much what you don't know that is the problem. It's what you think you know that just ain't so.

This statesman, one of the very few in the Den of Charlatans, has stayed the course for decades and I sincerely hope he has many more years of public service to offer America. I don't know where he gets the strength to stomach the corruption.

In a previous reaction on a contribution of Dr. Ron Paul I already mentioned that I feel some defeatism in Paul's words. This time again, he speaks of things he would like to see happen.

My main concern is that in history, great society-changes (I regard a shift to a gold/silver based monetary society a BIG change) always seem to have happened after a lot of violence.

Although I hope that people will get smarter, and that a velvet revolution will bring about that change, whenever I read Dr. Paul's contributions I am led to believe that the power elite simply will not let this happen, internet-education notwithstanding.

Dr Paul says the Fed has doubled the money supply. I am led to understand that at least one trillion of that increase of the Fed balance sheet is "toxic paper" from Fannie and Freddie. I am not disputing Dr Paul, but I do not understand how that is money supply. Can someone explain.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Basically, at root, the Fed creates money electronically and deposits it into the coffers of money-center banks for lending purposes. Then it is said the money supply "expands." Austrians call the printing of money "inflation." Price inflation occurs once the notes are actually put into circulation.

"interpret my Constitution and Common Law and live free"

And you can do so, completely secure from state predators so long as you do not interfere with their scams or accumulate property above the economic trigger point where it is a viable business case for them to deprive you of it. It is this disincentive to the productive that is doing in the US:

http://www.cli.gs/MathematicsOfRule

As to "legal tender", a good and necessary (for viable economy) idea, but, come the collapse, it is REAL, in demand barter goods, including your skills and ability to defend them that will get you through.

It will be a time "to hide your light under a bushel", from the hordes of thwarted "entitled" and splinter elements of the state, marauding for (your) resources. History is very clear on this point.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Actually, shattered societies may tend to default toward gold and silver, the latest example being Zimbabwe. We reported on this last year.

Nothing in the Constitution can be legalized (except by Amendment) since it is already the supreme law of the land. Governments and politicians can only create laws that outlaw, restrict or prohibit freedoms; so-called regulation.When these laws conflict with the Constitution, I feel no remorse whatsoever in becoming an outlaw and consider it my duty to do so. I will interpret my Constitution and Common Law and live free in the America that I love.