Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vpl3n6$24fdr$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: In committing injustice, government argues that money isn't property Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:55:35 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 52 Message-ID: <vpl3n6$24fdr$3@dont-email.me> References: <vpjon2$1ptmd$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 19:55:35 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="57480e92c4f16387d8e3006ef7a23bcd"; logging-data="2244027"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18127qcjDPnh44XOFdPJghO" User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS Cancel-Lock: sha1:xT9c6TcvtPp1xwR0brr4hvy7wHM= Bytes: 2963 On Feb 24, 2025 at 10:41:38 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: > In economic terms, money isn't property. It's a denomination of past > labor and earnings paid to a business's capital until there is a purchase > of property. It's for convenience in economies in which the vast > majority of economic exchanges do not involve barter. > > But this isn't a legal argument, till now. > > The government fined a business $50,000 for a labor law violation. An > administrative hearing was held, but the argument is that the > administrative law judge wasn't impartial as an employee of the > enforcement department of the agency. That's such a 'duh' argument it should never even have to have been made. But of course, our courts are full of LAW & ORDER judges who are ethically required to make the wrong ruling every time. > The business demanded due process, a trial in actual federal district court. > > The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due > process: > > (1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency); Wow. Just wow. > (2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and > > (3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the > "general welfare." > > I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his > criminal trial. > > The government's arguments cite the Legal Tender Cases (I am aware of > the outcome but not the arguments). Debtors could not demand specie or > hard currency to repay debts. They were required to accept fiat > currency. Except that's not true. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.