If you voluntarily convert a natural right to a privilege don't bitch

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[jkr]

word!


ip rules


its all contract law

[erowe1]

about government regulating the privilege.

Who owns federal reserve notes? Not you.

If you facilitate all of your trade using someone else property you have no good reason to bitch about the owner of said property demanding their cut. A property owner demanding what is rightfully theirs for using their property is not theft.

It is only theft if government steals from you for facilitating trade using your own property. But using your own property has its own problems because government tries to first convert your natural right to trade your own property into a privilege through licensing. If it fails to do that it simply levies a direct tax upon your property.

These problems are solved at a local level not federal elections.

If you think that acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes is a voluntary trading away of natural rights, then why is it necessary for the government to use lethal force to coerce us into it with legal tender laws?

[__27__]

If you think that acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes is a voluntary trading away of natural rights, then why is it necessary for the government to use lethal force to coerce us into it with legal tender laws?

Apparently if a thug steals your property and threatens to kill you if you don't accept it back, you're at fault for accepting it back.

And is someone really in this thread supporting intellectual property??

[Aratus]

technically if thee ceases to take natural rights as seriously as john locke or thomas jefferson
once did, as you assume that privileges only exist, are you now ceasing to be a 1700s whig
and are thusly now an 1800s tory not unlike the U.K's edmund burke in thy perspective?

[Matt Collins]

Rights and privileges are opposites. Rights are inherent, privileges are granted. Rights and responsibilities are inseparable, two sides of the same coin. When one passes their responsibilities off to the government, they lose their rights as well.

Two examples:
- The responsibility of self defense being passed off to the government means you lose the right to self defense.

- The responsibility of educating one's own children getting passed off to the government means you lose the right to educate your own children.



.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[newbitech]

FAQ's from the US Treasury Department.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml


http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/images/faq_q.gif 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?
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/images/faq_a.gif 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.I would like to point out that there is no Federal Statute mandating that a private business or person or organization must accept Federal Reserve Notes as PAYMENT for goods or services.

I'm wondering if the "unless there is a state law which says otherwise" matters?

As far as I can tell, when people decide to use FRN as payment, they aren't actually paying for that good or service, they are entering into a contract for credit. The payee becomes the creditor and the payor becomes the debtor.

So transacting business with FRN basically becomes an extension of the Federal Reserve Bank. When I use debt notes as a form of payment, I am promising to pay based on someone else promise to pay. If you follow this promise to pay all the way to the point of origin, the original promise to pay falls on the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks Promise to pay the United States Treasury for something.

That something is government bonds and gold. So the Federal Reserve says, hey Federal Government, we want to use your Bonds and gold, and exchange we will give you this note that promises we will repay that bond or gold.

Well, gold is easy enough to understand, but what about Bonds? These are debt instruments that the Federal Government issues in order to raise capital to fund expenses. So the government says to the economy, (capital markets/savings etc) hey we would like to use some of that excess capital or savings, take this note as a promise that we will return your capital.

So on the one side the Federal Government is trading Bonds for REAL capital and REAL savings. On the other side, the Federal Government is trading the exact same promise to the Federal Reserve in exchange for paper.

When it comes time for the capital investment or saving investment to mature and be repaid, the Federal Government says, here take this piece of paper in exchange for your capital or savings.

So the investor/capital producer/saver accepts this paper as payment in full.

It is not the Federal Reserve or the Federal Government who devalues capital, savings, and investment. It is the people who accept paper notes OR promises to pay OR DEBT in a fair value exchange for REAL goods and services.

Sure the Fed Res and Fed Gov facilitate this devaluation, but ultimately it is the free market that values goods in services in terms of paper promises that commits the devaluation into the economy. And ultimately it will be the free market that rejects paper promises as it becomes apparent that the Fed Res and Fed Gov are in collusion to create false promises and are ultimately forced to either raise tax or print money in order to keep the system working.

The larger the accumulation of paper promises the more incentive to support the system. For example China. China holds a very large portion of these paper promises. China needs the system of market valuation of goods and services in terms of these paper promises to stay strong. On the other hand, the common man with a bank account of $5,000 electronically recorded paper promises has an infinitesimal fraction of the interest in seeing this system of paper promise valuation stay strong.

In fact that interest is so small that the risk involved in seeking out better valuations based on promises backed by real asset exchange is inversely proportionate to the common mans creativity and entrepreneurial aspirations. Simply put, the common man whose savings and capital are limited to a tiny proportion of the paper promise pool has a tremendous wealth incentive to transact in REAL property outside of the scope of paper promise valuation.

What I have learned over the past 2 years is that having a granite foundation in the principles of liberty and freedom is a good start to understanding the changes that I need to see in my life in order to be successful in my pursuit of life liberty and wealth. I am now starting to explore what it takes to actually build something on that foundation and I must say that building on that foundation is exactly like building the foundation itself.

What this means to me in reality is that I will reduce, limit and eventually abandon my reliance and usage on the paper promise valuation system of commerce. My transaction must occur in valuations in terms of real property at the root level. For a goal, in the next year I want 50% of all of my transaction to occur without a paper promise valuation.

This means that I must find a way to obtain those goods and services that I desire without offering Federal Reserve Notes in exchange. Or as the OP puts it, I will refuse to exchange my natural right of free market exchange based on REAL property valuations for the privilege of transacting in exchanges based on paper promises valuations.

[erowe1]

Where is the coercion?

It's when you refuse to accept Federal Reserve Notes and they put you in jail for it, or when you have a business dealing in an alternative commodity-based currency and they steal your entire stash of those commodities, or when you try to pay your employees in gold coins that federal law says must be accepted at their nominal value, which is much less than their melt value, but then decides to prosecute you for tax evasion despite that law when they realize they aren't getting enough of the cut.

[LibForestPaul]

It's when you refuse to accept Federal Reserve Notes and they put you in jail for it, or when you have a business dealing in an alternative commodity-based currency and they steal your entire stash of those commodities, or when you try to pay your employees in gold coins that federal law says must be accepted at their nominal value, which is much less than their melt value, but then decides to prosecute you for tax evasion despite that law when they realize they aren't getting enough of the cut.
i.e.
When you open your own bank, and print your own money, and the Treasury Boys don't come after you and tazz your @ss, let us know, we'll be more than happy to use your funny money; can't be worse than the one we are using now.

Thanks for playing, b-bye.

[newbitech]

It's when you refuse to accept Federal Reserve Notes and they put you in jail for it, or when you have a business dealing in an alternative commodity-based currency and they steal your entire stash of those commodities, or when you try to pay your employees in gold coins that federal law says must be accepted at their nominal value, which is much less than their melt value, but then decides to prosecute you for tax evasion despite that law when they realize they aren't getting enough of the cut.


As long as you are not a creditor, you may refuse to accept FRN as payment. There is no Federal mandate to accept payment in FRN. The solution to paying your "employees" is not have employees. Create a contract that is not based on paper promise valuations.

I believe your example of an alternative commodity-based currency deals with competing currency which is a problem because this approach requires the creating of an alternative credit/debt system. Yes the laws for creating credit are ridiculous, but this is why people who try to create alternate currency get in trouble and go to jail. They are in the business of credit, and even though that credit is backed by gold or some other commodities, there is still a paper promise which makes them a creditor which means the Federal mandate for them to accept FRN's as legal tender for the credit exists.

I wish we could change our legal tender laws to allow competing paper promises, but I understand the entrenchment of the establishment on this issue is going to be hard to break. Any uncontrolled devaluation or valuation of those paper promises vis a vis a competing free market paper promise will quickly expose the fraudulent promises that are FRN. So it does not surprise me that the legislators have built in safe guards for themselves to protect the lie from this direct challenge to the FRN's sovereignty.

Until legal tender laws are changed, I believe the best way to expose that fraud on an individual basis is to simply NOT participate in the paper promise paradigm.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

about government regulating the privilege.

Who owns federal reserve notes? Not you.

If you facilitate all of your trade using someone else property you have no good reason to bitch about the owner of said property demanding their cut. A property owner demanding what is rightfully theirs for using their property is not theft.

It is only theft if government steals from you for facilitating trade using your own property. But using your own property has its own problems because government tries to first convert your natural right to trade your own property into a privilege through licensing. If it fails to do that it simply levies a direct tax upon your property.

These problems are solved at a local level not federal elections.

A natural right ruduces down like DnA and is guaranteed. While civil rights increase the people's liberty and equality, prerequisites necessary for their Civil Purpose, natural rights hold government accountable to God's judgement. The latter is more of an effective means in keeping a necessary tyranny from vainly persecuting the people.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Are natural rights guaranteed or self evident?

You have a natural right to decide whether or not you go catch your one fish a day. It is self evident.

You have a natural right to decide whether or not to forgo your fish today and instead build a net. It is self evident.

The net is your property and you are free to use or trade it because of your labor and sacrifice. It is self evident.

As a natural law is derived from the use of evidence and then reduced to a truth and not a possible theory, a natural right is a product of physical science. It is a certainty to the extent that it can't be taken away. If a soul perishes along the way in its quest for the Truth, natural right guarantees that the touch of the Almighty will heal it.

[mediahasyou]

If you think that acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes is a voluntary trading away of natural rights, then why is it necessary for the government to use lethal force to coerce us into it with legal tender laws?

The choice of using federal reserve notes is voluntary because the government cannot make your decision for you; only you can decide. You can choose to use alternative currency living as a freeman or if the gov catches you as a prisoner.

Or you can choose to live as a scared slave and use their currency.

a more in-depth article on the slave vs. prisoner issue: http://anarchorebellion.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=45&pid=229&st=0&#entry229

[RM918]

The choice of using federal reserve notes is voluntary because the government cannot make your decision for you; only you can decide. You can choose to use alternative currency living as a freeman or if the gov catches you as a prisoner.

Or you can choose to live as a scared slave and use their currency.

a more in-depth article on the slave vs. prisoner issue: http://anarchorebellion.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=45&pid=229&st=0&#entry229

Well, we can't all be rugged outlaws ducking the law for the rest of our lives, as I'm sure you're typing this in an internet cafe whilst evading a federal manhunt.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, we can't all be rugged outlaws ducking the law for the rest of our lives, as I'm sure you're typing this in an internet cafe whilst evading a federal manhunt.

The government is sovereign: the people own the economy. When the government involves itself with the people's economy, it falls into tyranny being no long rightful and sovereign choosing instead to partake in the promescuous activity of money changing -- the selling of forgiveness for both past sins and future indulgencies.