iamfreeru2 wrote:What I would like to know where does it say that "legal tender" is "money."
Legal means "lawful"
Tender means "money"
"No States shall.....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts........" Now remember the States are prohibited from accepting anything but gold and silver as "payment" of debts.
The Constitution says no such thing. The states are forbidden from printing their own fiat currency. It has nothing to do with states paying their debts.
Here is Black's definition of lawful money. "Money which is legal tender in payment of debts."
And yet above you asked what makes legal tender money.
No, the Constitution states the federal government shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. When the Constitution says no States shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, it is talking about acceptance not creation. Creation is reserved to the federal government and always has been.
Again, lawful money is legal tender in what? "Payment" of debt. I have already proven that FRNs are not "money," but obligations (debt). Tell me, how do you "pay" an obligation with another obligation? You can't, but you all can remain in denial. You have been proven WRONG!!
Good luck David. You will need it with these quatlosers.
Last edited by iamfreeru2 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
silversopp wrote:If he's redeemed FRNs into "lawful money" why can't he show us what they look like? Why can't he describe what "lawful money" looks like?
The closest I can come to figuring out what David is trying to do is that he is borrowing from the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation to convert FRNs into "lawful money."
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
iamfreeru2 wrote:
No, the Constitution states the federal government shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. When the Constitution says no States shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, it is talking about acceptance not creation. Creation is reserved to the federal government and always has been.
"Make" means "to create"
States have been paying their debts in FRNs for decades. How do you suppose they are getting away with that?
Again, lawful money is legal tender in what? "Payment" of debt. I have already proven that FRNs are not "money," but obligations (debt).
You haven't proven that FRNs are not money.
You don't understand the basic understanding of what money is. A seashell can be money as long as it is accepted as a medium of exchange.
Tell me, how do you "pay" an obligation with another obligation? You can't, but you all can remain in denial. You have been proven WRONG!!
And yet just yesterday I had an obligation owed to a restaurant for food that my wife and I had consumed. I gave the restaurant my FRNs and the obligation was paid. Explain that one.
Everyday, millions of Americans prove you wrong by using FRNs to pay off their obligations.
iamfreeru2 wrote:What I would like to know where does it say that "legal tender" is "money."
It seems pretty obvious, but some dumbass must have presented this silly argument to a federal court at some point. Oh, yeah, here it is.
10th Circuit wrote:Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.”
United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980). There, happy?
"No States shall.....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts........" Now remember the States are prohibited from accepting anything but gold and silver as "payment" of debts.
Not at all, but at about the same level as your "legal tender != lawful money" stuff. It says that no state can legislate ("make") anything other than gold and silver into good tender - in other words, that states can't coin or print money.
Pretty damn obvious stuff.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
iamfreeru2 wrote:
No, the Constitution states the federal government shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. When the Constitution says no States shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, it is talking about acceptance not creation. Creation is reserved to the federal government and always has been.
"Make" means "to create"
States have been paying their debts in FRNs for decades. How do you suppose they are getting away with that?
Again, lawful money is legal tender in what? "Payment" of debt. I have already proven that FRNs are not "money," but obligations (debt).
You haven't proven that FRNs are not money.
You don't understand the basic understanding of what money is. A seashell can be money as long as it is accepted as a medium of exchange.
Tell me, how do you "pay" an obligation with another obligation? You can't, but you all can remain in denial. You have been proven WRONG!!
And yet just yesterday I had an obligation owed to a restaurant for food that my wife and I had consumed. I gave the restaurant my FRNs and the obligation was paid. Explain that one.
Everyday, millions of Americans prove you wrong by using FRNs to pay off their obligations.
All you have shown is that you discharged your obligation with another obligation. You have paid nothing. There is no "money." Just because people accept FRNs does not make them "money." Paper has no value, but seashells may because they may have intrinsic value, just as gold, silver, nickel, copper, etc., etc, do. If people want to be fool enough to believe obligations of the United States are "money." That's their problem.
FRNs are debt because the fed is not the government. FRNs are based on loans, debt. They have nothing backing them, but the sweat of the American people. They are worthless pieces of paper and the fed will tell you so. I am through with this nonsense.
Have you ever noticed that the people who bitch the most about FRNs not being real money either 1) don't have any, or 2) go to extraordinary and stupid lengths not to pay that worthless funny money to the evil government in the form of taxes?
Last edited by Demosthenes on Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That web site is years old, and we basically did it ourselves. It is still up because it still draws traffic. However, here is the current one. It's much nicer, since we had it done professionally. I have never posted it here before, and never will again, unless someone posts the old one first.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
iamfreeru2 wrote:
All you have shown is that you discharged your obligation with another obligation. You have paid nothing.
Merriam Webster and I agree that discharging a debt is the definition of paying. You don't seem to grasp what words really mean.
I paid a debt off yesterday with FRNs.
There is no "money." Just because people accept FRNs does not make them "money."
Merriam Webster and I agree that the general acceptance of an object as a medium of exchange is the definition of money. You don't seem to grasp what words really mean.
FRNs are proved to be money by the fact that millions of Americans are using them as a medium of exchange.
Paper has no value, but seashells may because they may have intrinsic value, just as gold, silver, nickel, copper, etc., etc, do.
All objects have intrinsic value. Paper is valued so much that businesses are able to turn a profit growing and processing trees into paper. How can you be so unaware of our society to think that paper has no value?
If people want to be fool enough to believe obligations of the United States are "money." That's their problem.
FRNs are debt because the fed is not the government. FRNs are based on loans, debt. They have nothing backing them, but the sweat of the American people. They are worthless pieces of paper and the fed will tell you so. I am through with this nonsense.
And yet you won't give me all your FRNs. I wonder why...hmmmmm.
Good salesmen actually believe their own BS. You don't even attempt to portray that you actually believe this BS you're trying to sell.
Demosthenes wrote:Since we're sharing old pictures, here's one of David.
I just burst out laughing thinking about that ass clown putzing around on his motor scooter mumbling about King Arthur's conspiracy with the government.
iamfreeru2 wrote:
All you have shown is that you discharged your obligation with another obligation. You have paid nothing.
Merriam Webster and I agree that discharging a debt is the definition of paying. You don't seem to grasp what words really mean.
I paid a debt off yesterday with FRNs.
There is no "money." Just because people accept FRNs does not make them "money."
Merriam Webster and I agree that the general acceptance of an object as a medium of exchange is the definition of money. You don't seem to grasp what words really mean.
FRNs are proved to be money by the fact that millions of Americans are using them as a medium of exchange.
Paper has no value, but seashells may because they may have intrinsic value, just as gold, silver, nickel, copper, etc., etc, do.
All objects have intrinsic value. Paper is valued so much that businesses are able to turn a profit growing and processing trees into paper. How can you be so unaware of our society to think that paper has no value?
If people want to be fool enough to believe obligations of the United States are "money." That's their problem.
FRNs are debt because the fed is not the government. FRNs are based on loans, debt. They have nothing backing them, but the sweat of the American people. They are worthless pieces of paper and the fed will tell you so. I am through with this nonsense.
And yet you won't give me all your FRNs. I wonder why...hmmmmm.
Good salesmen actually believe their own BS. You don't even attempt to portray that you actually believe this BS you're trying to sell.
Sorry to disappoint, but I have no FRNs and do not accept them. So guess you are out of luck. Unlike you, I am not foolish enough to accept obligations. I do not need debt. BTW, I am debt free, are you?
iamfreeru2 wrote:
Sorry to disappoint, but I have no FRNs and do not accept them. So guess you are out of luck. Unlike you, I am not foolish enough to accept obligations. I do not need debt. BTW, I am debt free, are you?
iamfreeru2 wrote:Sorry to disappoint, but I have no FRNs and do not accept them. So guess you are out of luck. Unlike you, I am not foolish enough to accept obligations. I do not need debt. BTW, I am debt free, are you?
But if anyone who owes you payment for anything; a purchase from you, a service performed by you, etc; offers to compensate you with FRNS, you have to accept them or their debt to you is forgiven.
Unless you make previous arrangements to be compensated in seashells or your preferred medium of exchange, you have no choice in the matter.
FRNs are valid currency in this country. If they are refused, ... well go back and read the UCC regarding refused offers of payment.
Let's look at this silliness from iamfreeru2 again:
--"All you have shown is that you discharged your obligation with another obligation. You have paid nothing. There is no "money." Just because people accept FRNs does not make them "money." Paper has no value, but seashells may because they may have intrinsic value, just as gold, silver, nickel, copper, etc., etc, do. If people want to be fool enough to believe obligations of the United States are "money." That's their problem.
--"FRNs are debt because the fed is not the government. FRNs are based on loans, debt. They have nothing backing them, but the sweat of the American people. They are worthless pieces of paper and the fed will tell you so."
First of all, the intrinsic value of a seashell is its value in use. That is to say, its intrinsic value is the utility that can be derived from it. For example, you might use a seashell as a decoration, or as a paperweight. The moment you begin talking about exchanging that seashell for something else, you are no longer talking about intrinsic value (or use value); you are talking about exchange value.
A piece of gold also has intrinsic value, value in use. You can use it as a paperweight. If the gold is in the shape of a wire, you can use it to conduct electricity. That's another "value in use" or intrinsic value. You can shape that gold into a piece of jewelry, put it on your hand, and enjoy it. That is an intrinsic value. The moment you exchange that piece of gold for something else, you are talking about value in exchange, not intrinsic value.
A stack of twenty dollar bills (in the form of Federal Reserve notes) admittedly has relatively little or no intrinsic value to most people. I guess you could of course use those bills to light cigarettes. They have intrinsic value for that purpose. You could stuff those bills in the cracks in a wall, to provide insulation. I suppose that would be some intrinsic value, some value in use.
Come on, get real.
The attraction of Federal Reserve notes for me has nothing to do with their relatively small intrinsic value. I and 99.999995% of all psychologically normal people appreciate Federal Reserve notes not for their intrinsic value, but instead for their exchange value.
This is not rocket science.
The primary purposes of money are (1) to serve as a store of value (I can hide these Federal Reserve notes under my mattress for a while and, aside from the effects of inflation or deflation, the notes will serve as a store of value I can use later - to exchange them for something else); (2) to serve as a measure of value (a comparison role: this car or that television set is "worth" so many dollars in Federal Reserve notes); and (3) to serve as a medium of exchange (99.9999% of all people will gladly accept my Federal Reserve notes in exchange for goods and services those people provide to me). None of these three concepts involve "intrinsic" value (value in use).
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. Whether the notes have little intrinsic value or not, they have value IN EXCHANGE -- which is one of the main purposes of MONEY. 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 - and it also does not change the fact that Federal Reserve notes are MONEY.
No, when I receive Federal Reserve notes I really don't care whether those Federal Reserve notes are "lawful" money or not, any more than I care whether the sandwich I receive when I buy it with a Federal Reserve note is a "lawful" sandwich.
When I receive Federal Reserve notes as compensation for services I perform for other people, the "Federal income tax law" doesn't "care" whether those Federal Reserve notes are money, or lawful money, or unlawful money, or upside down money, or rightside up money or any other kind of money or "non-money." Those notes have VALUE IN EXCHANGE -- and that is sufficient to make the receipt of those notes a TAXABLE event for Federal income tax purposes. Yours, Famspear
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Famspear wrote:No, when I receive Federal Reserve notes I really don't care whether those Federal Reserve notes are "lawful" money or not, any more than I care whether the sandwich I receive when I buy it with a Federal Reserve note is a "lawful" sandwich.
Understood and agreed. I further agree with the points you make in a previous post about the intrinsic vs. full-faith-and-credit value of money. These guys know no more about economics than they do about law.
Still, it is worth reiterating that (not surprisingly) they are doubly wrong - federal reserve notes are, both in fact and in law, money.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
CaptainKickback wrote:So what forms of payment do you accept? Checks? MasterCard? Visa? DiscoverCard? American Express card? Debit card?
Accepting credit/debit cards requires a merchant account (or see below). And a checking account (although, AMEX will cut you checks for an additional fee). They also have a tendency to run credit checks to get said merchant account to determine if you should have an account and what rate you start at (factoring in your industry and suspected frequency of different risk transactions - like internet, phone, or in-person payments, etc.)
Also, you forgot eGold, Paypal, StormPay and their ilk. I wonder, if in theory, one could get by on life just using one of them.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
