Posted by sweetliberty on 05/26/11

I just read this:

Legal Tender Status

Page Content
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

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. 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. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

From here:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

Doe that mean what I think it means? Or is this just more goverment lip service. Clearly if individuals and companies are not required to accept Federal Reserve Notes as currency (barring state law), then... um... like, why are we doing it?

Posted 06/05/11 Glenn Cumming, GA

Thanks, Seetliberty. It reaffirms what I've been learning about legal tender status - that in settlement of debt, the creditor has to accept it as payment. So, if you take a debtor to court, you will be forced to take legal tender as settlement. There's nothing stopping us from circulating higher quality money, except Gresham's Law. As long as my creditor's are forced to accept payment in FRNs and sellers are willing to accept FRNs, that's what they'll be paid with, while my cash holdings are all of the precious metals variety. Fiat currencies are doomed. We will get our chance with hard money soon enough.

Posted 06/11/11 Duneflower Cedar City, UT

No offense, but I see this article as meaningless: Currently, what do nearly all US savings and credit accounts consist of? FRNs. Refusing to accept cash is not refusing to accept FRNs; it's only refusing one form of them.

Posted 06/26/11 Zzeezzrom Enoch, UT

"No offense, but I see this article as meaningless: Currently, what do nearly all US savings and credit accounts consist of? FRNs." Wrong; these accounts consist of digital accounting on the asset side of the bank's ledger. "Refusing to accept cash is not refusing to accept FRNs" Wrong; FRNs are cash. "it's only refusing one form of them." This argument is specious, frivolous, without foundation and without merit. No offence.

Posted by sweetliberty on 02/16/11

Funny video clip, from the animated Ricky Gervais show. What I love about this is how Pilkington seems to cut through the mess, and ask the very questions everyone should be asking about foreign aid and other types of wealth redistribution: WHY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3mqPG_fzPM

Posted 02/17/11 Wurthmann St. Louis, MO

Seeing this on the C4L website absolutely made my day. I've been a fan of the Ricky Gervais Show since the original podcasts years ago. Head like a F**king Orange.

Posted by sweetliberty on 12/31/10

Read this horrifying article this morning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/31/mississippi-sisters-parole-kidney

Two sisters were sent to prison 16 years ago for leading two men into a "trap" where two boys (at 14 and 18) robbed the men at gunpoint — for $11. No one was injured in the crime, which the two sisters denied playing any part.

The boys who actually committed the crime were released several years ago. But the sisters remained in prison, until:

"The Mississippi department of corrections believes the sisters no longer pose a threat to society. Their incarceration is no longer necessary for public safety or rehabilitation, and Jamie Scott's medical condition creates a substantial cost to the state of Mississippi." Said Harry Barbour, Governor of Mississippi. The condition of their parole? That one sister donate a kidney to the other, who requires daily dialysis.

This is a horrifying breach of self-ownership. The state has literally assumed ownership of both women's internal organs. Once a threat to the income of the State appears, the State proceeds to do whatever it will with the women's bodies, to cut costs. Anyone who was under the guise that the state and the prison system has society's and any individual's best interests in mind should find this story a compelling case for the opposite. Had the two sisters been released years ago — a punishment that would have more fit their part in the crime — one sister could have freely chosen to donate a kidney to the other, saving a life without State control over their bodies.

I think this story sets an ugly precident. If the State can order an individual to give up a kidney, what's to stop the State from ordering any other individual to give up any other body part, organ, or fluid? Harvesting organs from incarcerated individuals to "save the lives" (and save the State money) of individuals on the outside is a short step away from this.

The exhibit "Bodies" — the one that shows skinless, preserved humans in various poses — received scrutiny because of rumors that the exhibit's Chinese creators used imprisoned and/or hospitalized and/or poor individuals against their will. Yet this story of women being ordered what to do with their bodies by the State under threat of further incarceration and rescinded parole is being heralded as a victory.

And the fastrack to complete State ownership of our physical selves is being paved by Obamacare.

We're in big trouble.

Posted 01/02/11 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Wow isn't this the truth, do we really need any more horrifying stories of dominance in a state? It kind of makes you wonder what disease really is, what our bodies develop or what states develop by thinking they have some special gift the rest of us do not have. We look at ownership as in self and what we do in states and the state is looking at it as the owner of all who occupy the state, scary at best this is for sure. Thank you sweetliberty.

Posted by sweetliberty on 11/24/10

I'm asking this at a real, down-deep, fundamental level. I'm going to assume everyone here is in agreement that our current leaders are putting their hands into thing they don't belong -- health care, foreign occupations, TSA, etc. -- and should be scaled back.

But what are we "scaling back" to?

At its root, isn't "government" the same thing as "rule of law?" How can we have or advocate respect for the "rule of law," while at the same time despising government, equating it (rightfully) with force and violence, and wanting it drastically reduced? That seems contradictory to me. Government IS the rule of law; government is subjugation and violence, and it is not to be respected.

If government is force and violence, why are we advocating scaling it back or reducing it, as opposed to eradicating it completely? Wouldn't that be real, true freedom -- the absence of government intervention?

Are we just meeting the statists halfway? Are we afraid of real, actual, 100% complete freedom?

Posted by sweetliberty on 11/10/10

Some time ago -- maybe back in the David Spade era -- Saturday Night Live had a skit about free speech. A teacher was lecturing in a classroom, and said that everyone has free speech except you aren't allowed to state a threat against the President.

The skit was funny: a student raised his hand and said, "So, if I were to say, 'I'm going to kill the President,' then --" and immediately a handful of men in black suits and sunglasses swept in and hauled him away. This proceeded until even the teacher was whisked away by government security goons.

"Freedom of speech" in this country is a given in the minds of many, but when it's explained by liberty-minded folks -- even folks like Michael Bednarik -- there are always exceptions. You have total freedom of speech... except you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You have total freedom of speech... except you can't say certain words on the radio or on TV during certain hours or without a paid subscription. You can say anything you want about the government... except you can't say you want to kill the President.

Guess what, guys. That ain't freedom!

Freedom means without restriction. It doesn't mean mostly without restriction, except for several things we rationalize away in the interest of (here's where it hurts) safety.

Freedom needs to equal freedom. What we preach needs to equate to what we want to put into practice. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater should be no more off-limits than yelling "help! help!" in the city park while being chased by your friends. (I don't even know where that "fire" thing came from -- probably a single isolated incident 50+ years ago. I would bet a silver dollar that if someone yelled "fire" in a crowded theater today, nobody would move. We'd all probably just use the distraction to check out phones.)

Posted 11/11/10 rightsman Las Vegas,, NV

sweetliberty, It was a single isolated incident in the 1930's that caused the exception to free speech. If one were to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and caused a stampede after the phones were checked, and damage was caused, then the perpetrator should be made to pay for any damages. There is a remedy for every foolish act. In the Holy Bible (I know that you have stated that you are a liberal atheist) that the damages will be paid at the rate of three times the actual damages. I believe that is somewhere in Exodus. I would consider myself a firm believer in the Power - The Causer Of The Cause - but not necessarily a believer in any of the religious organizations or churches. I am very conservative politically, but very liberal socially. They are not the same though the main stream media and the psychiatrists have confused the issue to a great degree. You make a valid point, and I appreciate the post. Robert Walker

Posted 11/11/10 sweetliberty Saint George, UT

Hey rightsman. I think I agree with you -- if people were able to experience the consequences for their actions, there would be no need to "ban" certain behaviors or speech. The person who yelled "fire" in a 1930's theater should have been (and might have been, who knows) liable for damage to persons and property in the stampede he ignited. (Although I seriously cannot imagine stampeding to a door, kneeing grannies in the kidneys and trampling childen, *without first checking for smoke,* but hey. That's just me.) In this day and age, though, where everyone is able to (legally) avoid responsibility for so many things, society starts thinking that since we can't give people consequences, the next best thing is to prevent them from doing it in the first place. Trouble is, that only punishes the innocent.

Posted 11/12/10 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Now if freedom means without restriction does it mean without responsibility to self and others? Freedom is sometime so selfishly defined as to mean my freedom for me verses total freedom for all others. The neglect becomes the honesty of freedom doesn't it? If I decide to yell out FIRE!! for the express purpose to confuse people and cause unpredictable motion just to watch what happens, is this responsible in my own freedom? I am with you rightman but with the causer of cause has effect of anything caused and would have to have ownership of cause. Those advocating that freedom means total disrespect towards the others with no effects is a lie, all cause has effect. On the other hand if one communicates with total respect (including all) should in turn be respected. This does not advocate like or disliked but isn't mutual freedom mutual respect, all inclusive of all those playing. Saying words or symbols over media that does not scare or create bad effects that are destructive in nature should not be restricted. The symbols and the words themselves do nothing, the person advocating does nothing but those acting upon something become the cause and the effect. If FIRE Is yelled for laughter is still effect is it not? So in real terms it comes down to actual intent, the decision to cause destructive acts by issuing a command that prompts or activates violent reaction. This has no respect at all and is intended to create destruction. When we can no longer differentiate our responsibilities not only to us but the others around us do we loose sight of reason. Reason being very much part of freedom because if none existed either would you, you would have been killed long ago. So where is the demarkation or line between freedom of speech verses and reason. Will it hurt anybody physically it if is expressed, NO, then let it be said. Some attempt to put feelings as part of this, but what exactly are these feeling anyway? Past history, stored memory, it sure cannot be symbols and words unless of course I throw a dictionary at you then it would be but if all I do is say them they have no force to delver unless of course they are a commands like FIRE IN THE HOLE!! which is an indication someone is going to do blasting. This is a response command to order your attention and head, someone is going to blast a boulder. When someone yells that you should be looking as well when people yell FIRE. Also another warning command and these have a much different purpose than expression. The fact that we have any agency dictating expression of any kind is proof some have over stepped their bounds but lets not go to the other extreme where all things yelled out have the same quality at all because they don’t nor the same intent. Usually the intent of communications can be felt, is it to communicate or is it to destruct and freedom is very much understanding the difference between the two and having great respect paralleling good responsibility. By the way kill is also a command word to take somebody out if used with the intent to kill.