Let's get down to basics: much of the Alternate Universe thinking is that $ money, scrip, FRNs, coin etc are all rather confusing and it is unclear what -- if anything! -- one can use to pay taxes, debts etc in the US. Obviously, that's hogwash.
Money is whatever people want it to be. In some pacific islands they use big stones. Some Native Americans used wampum (beads). In the US, we USED to use gold and silver coins (hey, I even have some in my coin collection). And, a few decades back, our elected officials decided to switch over to paper money. After all, to work, the item we use only has to be accepted for its value. It's "real" worth is irrelevant (and if you disagree, find me someone who actually melted his silver or gold coins and cashed in the bullion. Even the precious metal coins just represented value.)
Pick a debt: the mortgage on your house. You bought it and its stated price was in US dollars. You knew that when you signed the docs and when the bank lent the US dollars. To claim now that you are confused by what exactly is meant by US dollars is disingenuous (and probably inspired by the pipe dream that you can walk away from the US Dollar debt by paying it back with something else).
Likewise, your taxes. You are paid in US dollars, the government wants its cut in US dollars. (No, I do not believe the IRS is a well run org or that our tax dollars are well spent.)
If the US government wanted to, they could declare plastic straws from burger king to be the new us tender and convert everything over to straw dollars (how appropriate!) So long as they worked in practice (as the US dollar does quite well) they'd be the new currency.
LP
Money Money Money
-
Famspear
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Dear colleagues:
Lawprof's comments above about money eerily remind me of a dispute I had at another web site a long time ago -- about critiques of the Federal Reserve System and Federal Reserve notes. Someone at the web site had attacked the Federal Reserve System based on bizarre, nonsensical pseudo-legalistic arguments, citing provisions of the Constitution and of all things the UCC. Here is an excerpt:
[BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL]
[Famspear wrote:] An anonymous user [ . . . ] re-inserted the following language on 28 June 2006, which verbiage had previously been twice inserted on 27 June by someone at the same address, and removed by another editor:
-----"The Constitution authorizes Congress to coin money, that it's [sic] value must be determinable, (Art 1, Sect eight) and mandates the backing of legal tender by gold or silver. (Art 1, Sect 10)[.] The Federal Reserve Act cedes Congress's power to private banks which may independently create an unlimited supply of unbacked fiat currency, and further mandates the acceptance of these valueless notes as legal tender. These points raise a serious question as to the constitutional legality of the Federal Reserve Act.
-----"The Federal Reserve "Note" has no redeemable value and lacks other aspects that place it outside the historic and general statutory definitions of Negotiable Instruments, (aka Notes) However any instruments issued by the Federal Reserve Banks have been specifically excluded from the requirements governing negotiable instruments. UCC 3-102"
[Famspear's response:] First of all, Article I section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures [ . . . . ]" Congress has the power to fix the standards of "weights and measures." There is no REQUIREMENT in this passage that Congress fix the standards of weights and measures. More to the point, nothing in this passage expressly requires that the value of money (as opposed to weights and measures) be fixed or determinable by Congress -- whatever that means. Granted, a statement that the value of money must be determinable is probably a reasonable-sounding statement, but that in and of itself does not make determinability (whatever that means) a legal requirement -- constitutional, statutory or otherwise.
Article I section 10 does not "mandate the backing of legal tender by gold or silver." Article I section 10 states (in relevant part): "No State shall [ . . . ] coin Money [ or ] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" (emphasis added). Nothing in Article I section 10 says that Congress cannot establish Federal Reserve notes or hula hoops or ping pong balls (or anything else it pleases) as legal tender. The Federal Reserve System was created by an Act of Congress, not by a "State." Further, nothing in Article I section 10 says that Congress must require that legal tender be backed by gold or silver.
The law arguably may or may not cede Congress' power to "private banks which may independently create an unlimited supply of unbacked fiat currency." This might be the basis for a description of a "criticism" of the Federal Reserve System -- if some elaboration is added. Further, the law apparently does mandate "the acceptance of these [ . . . ] notes as legal tender." (Notice, however, that I deleted the word "valueless" from the quote.) Maybe this would also be the basis for a "criticism" -- but can we get a bit more elaboration in the description of what exactly is deemed to be objectionable?
Anyone who really believes his or her Federal Reserve notes are "valueless" is invited to mail any and all such notes to me personally as a "valueless" gift to me -- and I will be happy to keep and spend those "valueless" notes on such valuable things as music CDs, movie tickets, lunches with friends, and anything else of value I can find to spend them on. It is incorrect [ . . . ] to say that Federal Reserve notes have no "redeemable value." Obviously, if you turn in two fifty dollar bills and receive, in return, a single one-hundred dollar bill, that $100 bill has value. You can still take that one-hundred dollar bill to a restaurant or store and obtain products or services that most people would think are worth - oh, about a hundred bucks. The mere fact that what you receive when you redeem a Federal Reserve note is another Federal Reserve note does not change the fact that all such notes have VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR VALUABLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
Come on folks, let's get real.
Regarding the statement that "any instruments issued by the Federal Reserve Banks have been specifically excluded from the requirements governing negotiable instruments. UCC 3-102", ummm, well, let's look at that statute (here, the Texas version of Uniform Commercial Code section 3-102):
-----"§ 3.102. SUBJECT MATTER. (a) This chapter [Chapter 3 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, entitled "Negotiable Instruments"] applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment orders governed by Chapter 4A, or to securities governed by Chapter 8."
--Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code sec. 3.102 (Tex. UCC).
So, let's see now. Chapter 3 of the UCC applies to Negotiable Instruments -- and not to "money" (i.e., not to coins or Federal Reserve notes)! So "money" and "negotiable instruments" and "payment orders governed by Chapter 4A" and "securities governed by Chapter 8" are separate concepts. What a shock. Chapter 3 of the UCC also does not apply to pig's feet and salt water taffy. So what? Let's be a bit more specific about what the "criticism" is supposed to be!
[END OF QUOTED MATERIAL]
Anyway, the above-quoted material is, I guess, another example of the "downside" effect of the development of the internet: goofy, alternative universe nonsense (about taxes, the Federal Reserve System, whatever) is created and bounced around by psychologically disturbed people, and is easily absorbed by lots of gullible people, a lot more quickly than it was in horse and buggy days, which means that maybe the rest of us need to be here -- to expose the nonsense whenever possible.
--Famspear
Lawprof's comments above about money eerily remind me of a dispute I had at another web site a long time ago -- about critiques of the Federal Reserve System and Federal Reserve notes. Someone at the web site had attacked the Federal Reserve System based on bizarre, nonsensical pseudo-legalistic arguments, citing provisions of the Constitution and of all things the UCC. Here is an excerpt:
[BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL]
[Famspear wrote:] An anonymous user [ . . . ] re-inserted the following language on 28 June 2006, which verbiage had previously been twice inserted on 27 June by someone at the same address, and removed by another editor:
-----"The Constitution authorizes Congress to coin money, that it's [sic] value must be determinable, (Art 1, Sect eight) and mandates the backing of legal tender by gold or silver. (Art 1, Sect 10)[.] The Federal Reserve Act cedes Congress's power to private banks which may independently create an unlimited supply of unbacked fiat currency, and further mandates the acceptance of these valueless notes as legal tender. These points raise a serious question as to the constitutional legality of the Federal Reserve Act.
-----"The Federal Reserve "Note" has no redeemable value and lacks other aspects that place it outside the historic and general statutory definitions of Negotiable Instruments, (aka Notes) However any instruments issued by the Federal Reserve Banks have been specifically excluded from the requirements governing negotiable instruments. UCC 3-102"
[Famspear's response:] First of all, Article I section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures [ . . . . ]" Congress has the power to fix the standards of "weights and measures." There is no REQUIREMENT in this passage that Congress fix the standards of weights and measures. More to the point, nothing in this passage expressly requires that the value of money (as opposed to weights and measures) be fixed or determinable by Congress -- whatever that means. Granted, a statement that the value of money must be determinable is probably a reasonable-sounding statement, but that in and of itself does not make determinability (whatever that means) a legal requirement -- constitutional, statutory or otherwise.
Article I section 10 does not "mandate the backing of legal tender by gold or silver." Article I section 10 states (in relevant part): "No State shall [ . . . ] coin Money [ or ] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" (emphasis added). Nothing in Article I section 10 says that Congress cannot establish Federal Reserve notes or hula hoops or ping pong balls (or anything else it pleases) as legal tender. The Federal Reserve System was created by an Act of Congress, not by a "State." Further, nothing in Article I section 10 says that Congress must require that legal tender be backed by gold or silver.
The law arguably may or may not cede Congress' power to "private banks which may independently create an unlimited supply of unbacked fiat currency." This might be the basis for a description of a "criticism" of the Federal Reserve System -- if some elaboration is added. Further, the law apparently does mandate "the acceptance of these [ . . . ] notes as legal tender." (Notice, however, that I deleted the word "valueless" from the quote.) Maybe this would also be the basis for a "criticism" -- but can we get a bit more elaboration in the description of what exactly is deemed to be objectionable?
Anyone who really believes his or her Federal Reserve notes are "valueless" is invited to mail any and all such notes to me personally as a "valueless" gift to me -- and I will be happy to keep and spend those "valueless" notes on such valuable things as music CDs, movie tickets, lunches with friends, and anything else of value I can find to spend them on. It is incorrect [ . . . ] to say that Federal Reserve notes have no "redeemable value." Obviously, if you turn in two fifty dollar bills and receive, in return, a single one-hundred dollar bill, that $100 bill has value. You can still take that one-hundred dollar bill to a restaurant or store and obtain products or services that most people would think are worth - oh, about a hundred bucks. The mere fact that what you receive when you redeem a Federal Reserve note is another Federal Reserve note does not change the fact that all such notes have VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR VALUABLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
Come on folks, let's get real.
Regarding the statement that "any instruments issued by the Federal Reserve Banks have been specifically excluded from the requirements governing negotiable instruments. UCC 3-102", ummm, well, let's look at that statute (here, the Texas version of Uniform Commercial Code section 3-102):
-----"§ 3.102. SUBJECT MATTER. (a) This chapter [Chapter 3 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, entitled "Negotiable Instruments"] applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment orders governed by Chapter 4A, or to securities governed by Chapter 8."
--Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code sec. 3.102 (Tex. UCC).
So, let's see now. Chapter 3 of the UCC applies to Negotiable Instruments -- and not to "money" (i.e., not to coins or Federal Reserve notes)! So "money" and "negotiable instruments" and "payment orders governed by Chapter 4A" and "securities governed by Chapter 8" are separate concepts. What a shock. Chapter 3 of the UCC also does not apply to pig's feet and salt water taffy. So what? Let's be a bit more specific about what the "criticism" is supposed to be!
[END OF QUOTED MATERIAL]
Anyway, the above-quoted material is, I guess, another example of the "downside" effect of the development of the internet: goofy, alternative universe nonsense (about taxes, the Federal Reserve System, whatever) is created and bounced around by psychologically disturbed people, and is easily absorbed by lots of gullible people, a lot more quickly than it was in horse and buggy days, which means that maybe the rest of us need to be here -- to expose the nonsense whenever possible.
--Famspear
-
Lawprof
Yes
Yes, it is all quite strange. David "welcomed" me to sui juris, even though that site is not open to registration and I never registered. Apparently he got tired of arguing with me over here, so he started an argument with me over there.
If you really want to opt out of the system and live in the alternate reality of these schemes, buy yourself a piece of land for cash someplace and fall off the grid. Don't use the roads or utilities, don't engage in commerce (no money transactions at all) and live off your land. You'll be quite happy. (Oh wait, that's what Ted the Unabomber did, right before he went completely NUTS.)
LP
If you really want to opt out of the system and live in the alternate reality of these schemes, buy yourself a piece of land for cash someplace and fall off the grid. Don't use the roads or utilities, don't engage in commerce (no money transactions at all) and live off your land. You'll be quite happy. (Oh wait, that's what Ted the Unabomber did, right before he went completely NUTS.)
LP