Re: FBI Raids Liberty Dollar - Confiscates All Ron Paul Dollar

"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:2b572$476c9f36$97d59627$19773@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:8z%aj.32279$JD.19753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:835af$476c7b3b$97d59627$21074@xxxxxxxxxx:


<snip>

ange with which to discharge that debt. Am I missing
something?

A Federal Reserve Note is a promissory note.

A FRN is not a promissory note, since it doesn't say that
you can redeem it for anything. A FRN is legal tender,
which means that creditors must accept it when their
debtors discharge their debts.

So what happened the day the Federal Reserve stopped
backing their Promissory Bank Notes with gold. Did they
do as many banks before them and printed more Notes than
they had gold to back them?

Of course.

Then did
it again when there was not enough silver in the bank
vaults to cover them again?

Of course.

The value of a dollar (i.e., the goods and services you can
exchange for it) relies on the magical power of the pooled
belief in the US government to maintain a orderly society
for commerce. This is not unlike the magical
property that you've attached to silver and gold. But you
can't eat them either.

Gold and especially Silver have many important uses in
manufactureing. For example the silver in you computer
keyboard, or you microwave touch pad. Silver is one of the
most important commodities and used in nearly every
manufacturing process.

And so is titanium, but you're not proposing that as a base for
money. The monetary basis for Au and Ag relies on their magical
properties, not on their industrial usefulness.

I don't have a problem with titanium or even paladium. I'm sure
both would do much better than what we currently use. So long
as the metal content is close to the face value.

A dollar is still defined as:
DOLLAR, money. A silver coin of the United States of the
value of one hundred cents, or tenth part of an eagle.
2. It weighs four hundred and twelve and a half
grains. Of one thousand
parts, nine hundred are of pure silver and one hundred of
alloy. Act of January 18, 1837, ss. 8 & 9, 4 Sharsw. Cont.
of Story's L. U. S. 2523, 4; Wright, R. 162.

Your source is Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the 1856 edition.
And it has no applicability.

Just because you don't appreciate it's application does not
mean it is not applicable. The law is the law untill the law
is changed. Right? So when was the legal definition of a
dollar changed? If it has not been changed, it is still the
same.

Law dictionaries are not dispositive. Dig up the "Act" of
1837, check through the law establishing the Federal Reserve,
and get back to me


Did that law say anything about re-defining what a dollar is or
is not?

Probably. I don't know. This is your claim, so the burden of
proof is on you. Law dictionaries are not the law, so you'll have
to do better than that.

So you want me to go off on a wild goose chase and read some
legislation you heard about that may or may not exist. If it does
exist it may or may not add anything of value to this discussion.

I'll tell you what, I'll let you read it, if you can find it.
Then if it has any
bearing on what money is or is not. You can tell me about it.
I'll assume you did not understand it, then I'll look where you
tell me I can find it.

It is *your* claim that a law from 1837 trumps the Federal Reserve
system. Since it's your claim that this law is valid, it's up to you
to substantiate it. That's the way things work. Your evidence is a
quote from a law dictionary. Do you understand why that's not
adequate?

Then I'll read it for myself.

There is nothing I can prove to somebody who does not want proof.
If you are not interested in proof, no amount of it will change
your mind.

So give me some proof. Do you have the text of the 1837 law? Does it
have a listing in the United States Code? Has any court decision
been based on it? Does it conflict with modern monetary statutes?

http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/coinageact.html

This is the (original) 1792 coinage act. It's beyond me what talismanic
power you think it has.

The Congress still has the authority over the regulation of the Money
supply.

True.

The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the Federal Government, it is a
privately owned bank.

The Fed is established by law and operated by Presidential appointees
confirmed by the Senate. It's not a "privately owned bank."

It's authority is defined by the law, not by their board of govoners.

OK. But part of it's authority comes from delegation to it by law.

<snip>

This is true in that if I sign a promissory note to you it is
evidence of my debt, and of your wealth. So at the same time I am
correct, and you are correct. Except for the fact you are not
intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that fact.

I've asked you some questions; I've asked you to back up your claims.
I've been nothing but polite. What does it say about you that you
stoop to insult me?

You play word games, and calling you on them is not an insult anymore
than it's an insult for you to think I didn't under the semantics of
your word game.

Whoa! Dial down the paranoia just a tad.

If you can't back up your claims, then you can't. No need to go off on
me for pointing it out.

If I hold your promissory note, then you're in debt to me. If you
can and will pay your debt, then that is evidence of some wealth on
my part. Neither of these things makes "promissory note" and "money"
opposites.

In absolute terms gold and silver are instruments of wealth, and a
promissory not is an instrument of debt. When the promissory note is
defective then it is the opposite of money.

I can understand that a defective promissory note might be considered
the opposite of wealth, in that wealth is a positive economic "force,"
and the defective note is a loss and therefore negative economic force.
But money is just the medium of exchange.

Pay perticular attention to section 5 on the two principal qualities
essential to the validity of a note;

It's an unconditional promise to pay a sum of money. A promissory note
for $20 is nominally worth twenty dollars. A defective promissory note
for $20 is nominally worth negative twenty dollars, in some sense. The
defective note might be considered the opposite (in accounting terms) of
the sum of money represented by the note's face value. But that doesn't
make promissory notes (espeicially non-defective ones) the opposite of
money. They're in different categories.

And nothing below makes a promissory note the opposite of money. Unless
you have your own definition of opposite. Or money.

PROMISSORY NOTE, contracts. A written promise to pay a certain
sum of money, at a future time, unconditionally. 7 Watts & S.
264; 2 Humph. R. 143; 10 Wend. 675; Minor, R. 263; 7 Misso. 42;
2 Cowen, 536; 6 N. H. Rep. 364; 7 Vern. 22.
A promissory note differs from a mere acknowledgment of debt,
without any promise to pay, as when the debtor gives his creditor
an I 0 U.
(q.v.) See 2 Yerg. 50; 15 M. & W. 23. But see 2 Humph. 143; 6
Alab. R. 373.
In its form it usually contains a promise to pay, at a time
therein expressed, a sum of money to a certain person therein
named, or to his order, for value received. It is dated and
signed by the maker. It is never under seal.

2. He who makes the promise is called the maker, and he to
whom it is made is the payee. Bayley on Bills, 1; 3 Kent, Com, 46.

3. Although a promissory note, in its original shape, bears no
resemblance to a bill of exchange; yet, when indorsed, it is
exactly similar to one; for then it is an order by the indorser
of the note upon the maker to pay to the indorsee. The indorser
is as it were the drawer; the maker, the acceptor; and the
indorsee, the payee. 4 Burr. 669; 4 T. R. 148; Burr. 1224.

4. Most of the rules applicable to bills of exchange, equally
affect promissory notes. No particular form is requisite to these
instruments; a promise to deliver the money, or to be accountable
for it, or that the payee shall have it, is sufficient. Chit. on
Bills, 53, 54.

5. There are two principal qualities essential to the validity of
a note; first, that it be payable at all events, not dependent on
any contingency; 20 Pick. 132; 22 Pick. 132 nor payable out of any
particular fund. 3 J. J. Marsh. 542; 5 Pike, R. 441; 2 Blackf. 48;
1 Bibb, 503; 1 S. M. 393; 3 J. J. Marsh. 170; 3 Pick. R. 541; 4
Hawks, 102; 5 How. S. C. R. 382.

And, secondly, it is required that it be for the payment of money
only; 10 Serg. & Rawle, 94; 4 Watts, R. 400; 11 Verm. R. 268; and not
in bank notes, though it has been held differently in the state of New
York. 9 Johns. R. 120; 19 Johns. R. 144.

6. A promissory note payable to order or bearer passes by indorsement,
and although a chose in action, the holder may bring suit on it in his
own name. Although a simple contract, a sufficient consideration is
implied from the nature of the instrument. Vide 5 Com. Dig. 133, n.,
151, 472 Smith on Merc. Law, B. 3, c. 1; 4 B. & Cr. 235 7 D. P. C.
598; 8 D. P. C. 441 1 Car. & Marsh. 16. Vide Bank note; Note;
Reissuable note.

United States Federal Reserve Notes will be worthless the
same day the United States is shut down.

Well, of course. What's your point? You think that the
same day the US is shut down you'll be able to eat Silver
Liberties?

I will be able to trade silver coin or bullion for food or
energy unless the government passes a law confiscating all
gold and silver.

The hypothetical here is that it's the day after the US is shut
down. The gov won't be passing any laws on that day.

That's very good. What happens on that day to all the people
who have their life savings evidenced by federal reserve notes
in the bank? It'd be the same as when the Confederacy lost the
war and the people had trunks full of worthless Confederate
paper money.

Depending on the situation, you might not be able to rtade bullion
either. But your point is obviously true. So what?

It would be a little
ironic for a government that was formed to protect private
property rights, to
treat the private property of it's citizens as loot.

And your point?

Every government eventually fails, when they forget why they
were formed, and what the duty of a public servant is. To often
they consider themselves the master and the public the servant.

Every government has either failed or hasn't yet failed. Does
anyone dispute that?

When has silver or gold ever failed as a currency? Not since they
were first used in trade have either one been worthless in exchange
of goods or services.

Silver and gold are worthless in commerce under two conditions: 1)
there are no commodities to exchange (e.g., in a famine), and 2)
there is so little social order that exchanges can't be made safely
and in good faith.

The fact that someone criminal or government agent would steal the
gold or silver is not proof that it is worthless, but of it's value,
and their lack of respect for your property rights.

Of course not. It just makes your claim of the superiority of bullion
suspect. That's all.

Hence it's safer to put your trust in gold or silver as a store
of value than it is in one government or another not to debase it's
own currency.

Bullion is not a free store of value. You must protect it and assay
it. That said, there are certainly many historical examples in which
governmental legal tender has lost its value while bullion retain its
own.

I don't recall anybody making the claim that bullion is a free store
of value.

In other words, it may or may not be "safer to put your trust in gold or
silver as a store of value." That's all.

Governments hate competition! Of the 3 most important
monopolies, Money is the first most important monopoly.

And your point?

I was wondering if you have a point? or if you are pointless.

Even though I asked first, I'll answer you. I'm trying to
understand what you're talking about. You either say things that
don't make sense (FRN = promissory note, debt instruments as the
opposite of money, dictionary definitons of the dollar, etc.) or
you say things that are stone cold obvious (failed governments
have worthless currency, US legal tender is a monopoly).

<shrug>
Maybe it's just me.
</shrug>

I think it's just you. Since these are not complicated issues.
With thousands of years of history to provide examples.

These are extremely complicated issues. You are free to
oversimiplify them in your own mind. But I'll point to my paragraph
above my <shrug>.

If you can convince somebody they can not understand simple economics,
then you have the power to tell them the Emperor wears a beautyful
suit of clothes. Out of fear of looking foolish they may even go
along with you.

Yet anyone can read a very good book that explains the history of
modern economics so that virtually anyone can understand what the
Federal Reserve is who created it, how they lied to the Congress and
the American people, as well as their ultimate aims.

The Creature from Jekyll Island, A second look at the Federal Reserve
System by G. Edward Griffin.

Great. Is this the same guy who's responsible for "A World Without
Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17" and "Capitalist Conspiracy"?

I'll pass.

Robert


.

Relevant Pages