About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, March 22 - 6:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It is for the courts that the legislature defines “legal tender.” If the legislature did not define legal tender, there would be no way to know when a debt has been discharged, or when payment has been made. All governments create a plethora of medals, medallions, certificates, promises, and warrants that may be valuable, negotiable, even fungible, but are not recognized in courts of law as legal tender. That is why a government must define the term in order for objective law to be possible. Moreover, in the USA until 1857, several types of foreign coins were commonly recognized by law as being “legal tender.” The Spanish Dollar was the foundation of commerce, both for international and local trade. Bank notes from the early 19th century promised to pay fractions of a dollar, but displayed images of Spanish or Mexican coins. (See “Spanish Coins on American Notes” here: http://exhibits.oldnote.org/exhibits/show/scoan/about )

 

 

Gold Medal Awarded by Congress to Charles Lindbergh

Gold. Shaped like a coin. Issued by Congress. Not legal tender.

 

More on my blog here:

https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2017/01/what-is-legal-tender.html



Post 1

Tuesday, March 23 - 2:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

If the terms of the original agreement specify an objective form of payment, such as a certain quantity of gold, silver, potash, or oil, a government definition of legal tender is not necessary.



Post 2

Tuesday, April 6 - 5:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In theory, you could agree on a non-objective form of payment, as long as you agree on it. The point here is that the government must define what is and is not a government instrument for the payment of debts, again, as it applies in courts of law. The purpose of courts is to settle conflicts. Both parties can bring all the goodwill they want, but if they did not have a serious disagreement in principle they would not be in front of an artbitrator in the first place. That is why the assertion that courts are not supposed to interpret the law is poorly grounded. If the law were unambiguous, people of goodwill would never have any disagreements, at least not contractual ones. And pretty much that is true. We do not spend our lives in courtrooms over every misunderstanding because we really can work them out on our own. But what happens if you promise to pay with a herd of sheep and your herd dies? What would be equitable? You could offer Congressional medals, deeds for federal land, or the right to use a certain radio frequency. And if the other party finds something to agree on, then there is no problem. When a problem remains, you end up in court and there is found the requirement for a definition of legal tender.

 

(Edited by Michael Marotta on 4/06, 5:35pm)



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, April 7 - 2:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

If you promise to pay with a herd of sheep and it dies, you must provide equivalent value.  "Equivalent" can be defined by current market conditions.  There is no need for a government definition of legal tender.



Post 4

Sunday, April 18 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

No, I am sorry, but we just do not agree. You and I have a problem and we do not agree. The sheep are dead. I am offering you 1000 bushels of apples. You don't want them. What do you want? 10,000 eggs. I don't have those and don't want get into the egg business. How about 400 lbs of copper bars? You say no. You want gold. Well, OK, maybe. How much?  You say 40 ounces. I say No, that's too much, I counter with 28. You say No, not enough. Back and forth, back and forth. If we cannot agree, you go without the sheep you paid for, which is fine with me. I tried being reasonable. You rejected all of my offers. You can pound salt for all I care. So, you sue me in a court of law with competent jurisdiction. Lacking any definition of legal tender, it is entirely up to the whim or wisdom of the bench. That is not objective law.

 

In a discussion with Henry Mark Holzer, Ayn Rand said that Roman law was objective. It definitely was not based on individual rights, but it was written down and posted for all to know and it was uniformly enforced. That made it objective. Maybe Ayn Rand was wrong about that. But if you so, you are going to have to make a case.



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.