Keith Evans
Jul 24, 2017 · 2 min read

Ideological conservatives see the constitution as a firewall that exists between their rights and a government they don’t trust. Ideological progressives see it as a charge to government to not only protect the individual from demands made upon him/her by government, but also to enact policy that best enables the realization of the rights listed.

We saw this dichotomy in full view in the courts following the enactment of the ACA as the rights of individuals to make choices was pitted against the obligation of government to best enable the individual’s realization of the right to life. Any such contradictions will always find their way into the realm of property rights as the currency is mistakenly identified as property.

Governments issue currencies as a tool to enable commerce and trade, not as property to be transferred to individuals with recognition of their sovereign rights of ownership. All governments retain the right to issue and to extract (tax) the currencies they require as payment of contracts and obligations. It is how they fund the provisioning of goods and services they need. The reality and purpose of the currency has been the most perverted of all of the present day concepts of government in America, leading to its dysfunction as a governing body.

As Americans cling to their misconception of ownership of the currency, even after it has been canceled by taxation, they feel that they have an ownership interest in the issuance of currency to replace it in the private sector to an extent that far surpasses their authority in a democratic government. As this misconception has never been properly defined as such by the courts, and even reinforced by many conservative decisions, the ability of the federal government to fulfill its obligation to enable the rights within the constitution has been severely hamstrung, to the detriment of all.

    Keith Evans

    Written by

    Meandering to a different drummer.