Legal tender laws. I know for tax purposes the U.S. dollar is only allowable tender. I never heard of this one, but Tom Woods at the Freedom Fest debate brought up how gold gets taxed. There are over 50 different currencies in the U.S. now and some of the biggest are getting banks to accept this tender, but the monopoly dollar is still present for those coercive desires of the government.
I’ve heard of this. The over 50 currencies in the U.S. I’ve come across in the news are only paper currencies and all but two are only in the hundreds circulation wise. The other two are in the thousands in circulation with a New England currency having the most in circulation and accepted at some banks. There’s definitely some social engineering going on, some picking and choosing by the government as to which currencies will be ignored and which ones not.
This non-logic pops up quite often, that because the government chooses to not enforce a law in a particular circumstance that means that the law doesn’t exist and is never enforced.
The fact that government allows people to use dollars and euros(sometimes), does not mean that the government grants people freedom of contract when it comes to money, it just means that the government has deemed in appropriate to make those allowances as part of its regulation of trade.
I’m certain that you just reflexively throw up objections without even considering their merit.
Of course, no one even mentioned the time the government confiscated all the gold coins in the country and “paid” for it in federal reserve notes. No way, the government never made it illegal to own money.
For someone who wants to rely on history as the basis of his argument, you sure do spend a lot of time ignoring it.
He said that the US government does not allow people to use anything other than federal reserve notes; this isn’t “non-logic,” he was just wrong.
And yeah, the US did confiscate gold in 1933.
I don’t see the relevance to today, however.
That would be the only way I could see someone saying they are being “forced to use the dollar.” Though I think it’s just a better argument to say they are being forced to pay taxes.
Please don’t type like that.
The first link is more complicated than what libertarian conspiracy theorists talk about, I’m certain. Not to justify the state, but I never thought the liberty dollar was on the up and up as far as their business practices.
The second link also says,
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Except for the fact that I’m right.
Please start being intellectually honest.
No, it isn’t.
As relates to WHICH SPECIFIC BITS OF THE FEDERAL LEGAL TENDER it wants to accept. And because credit cards and debit cards provide the transaction in dollars, i.e. federal money, it’s all federal money. So you REALLY need to learn that which you are discussing.
Selectively Quoting. How disingenuous.
If anyone bothers to click the link, you’ll notice the FAQ is talking about what “legal tender” means. What the answer, which Wilmot quoted mid-paragraph, is saying that a debtor is obligated to take dollars in payment of a debt, but a business is not obligated to engage in a transaction with a dollar holder.
It says that businesses are allowed to create their own policies on acceptance of cash. They can also make their own policies as to whether they will accept Euros or barter.
I don’t know what you’re arguing about, this isn’t a controversial debate, it’s just a fact. Some businesses will accept something other than federal reserve notes.
That’s actually not what it says,
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.
What the law really states is that for all contracts not otherwise stated the assumed form of payment is legal dollars. If you wanted to charge 800 gummy bears for a pair of jeans and refused federal reserve notes as the equivalent, you’d be able to do so. I’m not entirely certain about debts, I think if you stated in the contract specifically what you would take, there would be a case for it, but that may be a legal case matter that I’m not familiar with.
Of what cash. But cash itself as FRNs are legal tender. You DO know what that means, RIGHT?
You can demand bubble gums if you want.
I was about to tell you were wrong on that account, but it seems I’m behind the times.
Turns out that in 1977 congress repealed the 1933 clause that outlawed contracting for payment in gold.
http://www.safehaven.com/article-11114.htm
Of course, gold confiscation in 1933 is still relevent for the simple reason that its still in Fort Knox.
Policies for cash would also include the policy of not accepting cash or of accepting foreign currencies.
Of course gold confiscation isn’t a good thing and should be given back, but this is coming from someone of the opinion that the Japanese are owd repayment for what was taken from them with significant interests.
What was taken from them? You mean the dozen cities burned to the ground?
I should have said Japanese-Americans.