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.