Liberty or Death

Recently...I shouldn't say recently because this has been going on for some time, but increasingly more recently, the study of law both domestic and international are merging, but not for the sake of the wealthiest from a monetary standpoint, but from an idealistic standpoint due to so many issues that are gathering or surrounding the poorest of people. The issues are wide ranging, of course, but the narrow facts to solidify one issue from the next seem evasive suddenly because by arguing one issue the question of another issue comes into play or is asked and the issue then goes nearly undecided or watered down because all the issues begin to fill the arena where one issue is being argued. But, this is a natural formation when all of these issues are intrinsically attached and cannot be separated as we might think they should be.
For instance, let's say that Joe believes in property rights and he also believes that he should not be taxed by the government or his surrounding society for the things that he claims to own. However...(or should I say but?) However, the things that he claims to own are not just things that were manufactured by a company, they are land that was formed by nature and contain many minerals that companies would like to own or obtain for the purpose of manufacturing products that other people will then purchase and say that they own.
Now, this land that Joe says he owns because he bought with money (which is manufactured out of debt) fiat currency, (debt by which only other people forge the existence of through there future labor), can Joe then say he legally owns this land with such a currency? A currency that does not truly have a tangible value to it but by the sheer speculation of a future workforce that may or may not truthfully exist? What if that workforce is increasingly limited or dwindling? What if that workforce is not there to make certain that that currency has value in the future for which it is pledged? Can Joe say that he rightfully owns land based on a false or failing hope?
You answer that question, not for me, but for yourself.
The study of law has many philosophers from the past adding their input over centuries that have changed, through erosion and build up and rearranging of surface level thoughts. We can study the history of what made the laws of yesterday and maybe use them to show examples to a point now apparent, but we might not be able to rely on them as the basis for today's arguments regarding personal liberties or rights, because the landscape of all things has primarily changed.
To base a victory, of say American colonialists against the British Army (England) on the fighting with arms, artillery and supplies that were partly furnished by placing a people's future labor, in a distant land, in debt (as the French did to the people of France)loaning money to the colonists by way of the Frenchmen's labor may not be a true victory. The victory was seen as one taken by show of force in the America's but from the people of France's point of view it was at their expense and they therefore beheaded their King and Queen. The people of France's show of force in storming the castle and punishing the people responsible for the loans did not unequal the gruesome brutality of the war between the American colonialists and the British except in size. People lost their lives.
Louis the 16th and Marie Antionette were beheaded, the British were defeated, the colonialists became the new owners of the land previously occupied by the native American Indians and the banker's, the money changers who helped fund this entire fight went straight away without a scratch to their vaults and made their ROI deposits.
People got hurt, many people got hurt and many suffered except for the banker's who quite possibly made the whole affair possible and no one, to this day, is any the wiser for it. (except maybe me and possibly the banker's) And, surely, I would love to make all these facts separate from one another but I can't do that anymore. I see fabric now where I used to just pull at threads. And I cannot un-know it.