The Nature of Money by Lew Rockwell

[ithink]

Well of course value is not intrinsic, the words are not synonyms.

It's not a matter of the terms being synonymous, it's a matter of proper classification of one term within the defined scope of another. Value is not intrinsic in the same way that a Doberman Pincer is not a cat.

Intrinsic does not live within the scope of value: intrinsic is an adjective, value is a noun. Your analogy of the dog and cat is ridiculous and the discussion has morphed from a discussion about economy to a lesson in english. It is almost as if your attempts to look smart just end up making you look dumb and dumber. The phrase "intrinsic value" is a proper and valid description of various currencies and money as it pertains to the discussion. If we adopted your view that it is all relative and subjective (not what I was meaning), then everything would be extrinsic and intrinsic could be eliminated from the english language. The correct useage of extrinsic would be to point out that your involvement of extrinsic in this discussion is extrinsic to the discussion itself.

[EclecticLibertarian]

Intrinsic does not live within the scope of value: intrinsic is an adjective, value is a noun. Your analogy of the dog and cat is ridiculous and the discussion has morphed from a discussion about economy to a lesson in english.

It is your responses that have been ridiculous. The question of whether value is intrinsic is not a question of syntax, grammar, or parts of speech; it is a matter of logical semantics. Such a concept is quite evidently beyond your present intellectual and social capacity to discuss rationally, which is why I decided not to attempt to explore the matter further. As for your derogatory comments, let me just finish by saying that I don't consider it a detriment to myself, even in the slightest, to be viewed as "dumb and dumber" by the likes of one such as yourself.

[LoveIsTruth]

Well of course value is not intrinsic, the words are not synonyms.

It's not a matter of the terms being synonymous, it's a matter of proper classification of one term within the defined scope of another. Value is not intrinsic in the same way that a Doberman Pincer is not a cat.

Intrinsic does not live within the scope of value: intrinsic is an adjective, value is a noun. Your analogy of the dog and cat is ridiculous and the discussion has morphed from a discussion about economy to a lesson in english. It is almost as if your attempts to look smart just end up making you look dumb and dumber. The phrase "intrinsic value" is a proper and valid description of various currencies and money as it pertains to the discussion. If we adopted your view that it is all relative and subjective (not what I was meaning), then everything would be extrinsic and intrinsic could be eliminated from the english language. The correct useage of extrinsic would be to point out that your involvement of extrinsic in this discussion is extrinsic to the discussion itself.

Brilliant, ithink!

[LoveIsTruth]

...it's a matter of proper classification of one term within the defined scope of another. Value is not intrinsic in the same way that a Doberman Pincer is not a cat.

Exactly! Just like computer mouse is not a mouse because mouse is a mammal, and every fool knows that mouse has a nose? YOUR SCOPE, YOUR CONTEXT is wrong. You apply your definition in the WRONG CONTEXT! "Computer mouse" is a proper phrase in a proper context, and so is "intrinsic value," with established and clear meaning as defined by MULTIPLE dictionaries. Computer mouse exists, and so does intrinsic value. Apply the proper context and meaning, and your problem is solved! Otherwise, argue this one with a dictionary, not with us!

By the way, thanks for the discussion. I enjoy having you on this forum. Thanks!

[EclecticLibertarian]

...it's a matter of proper classification of one term within the defined scope of another. Value is not intrinsic in the same way that a Doberman Pincer is not a cat.

Exactly! Just like computer mouse is not a mouse because mouse is a mammal, and every fool knows that mouse has a nose?

I said I was going to stop attempting to explain this, and so I will not address this further. Nevertheless, I will say that your analogy is not the same as mine, though I am certain that after reading this you will still think so.

YOUR SCOPE, YOUR CONTEXT is wrong. You apply your definition in the WRONG CONTEXT! "Computer mouse" is a proper phrase in a proper context, and so is "intrinsic value," with established and clear meaning as defined by MULTIPLE dictionaries.

No. My scope and context is not wrong. You believe it to be wrong despite my attempts to demonstrate otherwise. I even demonstrated that you were using the wrong term for the meaning (you confused intrinsic value with commoditized/market value).

Computer mouse exists, and so does intrinsic value. Apply the proper context and meaning, and your problem is solved! Otherwise, argue this one with a dictionary, not with us!

As I have mentioned previously and attempted to explain in previous posts, I do not dispute the existence of the term. Yes, it is a term that is used in the scope of finances. Yes, in some sense, it could even be used in the course of describing the value of gold or silver coins within such a context. That was NOT my point, nor did I EVER dispute such a fact, although I suspect you may suppose that I did, and perhaps even cite some things I have stated in an attempt to prove that I meant something different than I meant; since you still have quite evidently not really come close to an understanding of the point I was attempting to make. I believe it to be beyond futile to attempt to discuss the concept further with you as well since like, "Ithink", you seem convinced that I am merely debating a dictionary definition of a term. Instead, I will simply end any further discussion in this thread on my part with this:


Yes, you are right that there is such a term as "intrinsic value". Yes, it has a common usage which might be applied to the discussion at hand (although I believe you did not properly do so). Nevertheless, you have quite evidently missed the point I have tried to make, and I have come to realize that at this time it is futile to attempt to discuss the matter further because your glass is evidently full.

By the way, thanks for the discussion. I enjoy having you on this forum. Thanks!

No problem. It has certainly been educational. Perhaps in the future when another topic comes up that I care to comment on, I will only through in a penny's worth rather than attempting to contribute a nickel or more.

[LoveIsTruth]

I will simply end any further discussion in this thread on my part ...

That's unfortunate. Would you care to discuss other topics in this thread? I enjoy your input. You seem to be thoughtful (although perhaps a bit stubborn) individual, but hey, that makes it even more fun!

Yes, you are right that there is such a term as "intrinsic value". Yes, it has a common usage which might be applied to the discussion at hand (although I believe you did not properly do so). Nevertheless, you have quite evidently missed the point I have tried to make,

So your point is that all value is perceived rather than "real?" I partly agree with you, but say that perceived doesn't make it less real. Love, intelligence, virtue, truth itself are all perceived. It does not make them less absolute or useful! And if your point is that value of commodities fluctuate with that perception, I agree too, but again say such fluctuations are much less than with fiat, un-backed paper! Thousands of years of history are a solid proof of that. Gold or silver coins of ancient Rome or Egypt are as valuable as in the day they were made, but all paper currencies lose most or ALL of their purchasing power within a few decades. In contrast the value of commodities never goes to zero, and ultimately is not subject to the whims of banksters and politicians who conjure purchasing power out of nothing via legalized counterfeiting. You cannot conjure commodities out of nothing! This is why 100% commodity based currency is the most honest and the most stable monetary system known to man. That is a fact. This is also the reason why such a monetary system will be the predominate preference of a truly free market where immoral government coercion (and thus legalized plunder) is removed.


Thanks for your input.

[ithink]

Brilliant, ithink!

Wow, we agree on something? Time to throw a party! But I'm just kidding, I think we agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on.

[LoveIsTruth]

Brilliant, ithink!

Wow, we agree on something? Time to throw a party! But I'm just kidding, I think we agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on.

Thanks, ithink!

[LoveIsTruth]

Here is an amazing graphical representation of derivative exposure of 9 biggest banks. Only fiat fraud makes this possible.

Click to see:

understanding 100 mill cash.jpg (42.14 KiB) Viewed 2798 times

Be carefull, however, the article speaks of the dangers of "unregulated" markets. The only regulations you truly need are those imposed by Free Markets,-- the most stringent regulations,-- and MUCH stricter than bought out government regulators who actually allow the fraud. The regulations of Free Market are bankruptcy, and fraud prosecution. These the only regulations one needs if justice is to prevail!

Note, that these astronomical derivatives do NOT become weapons of mass financial destruction unless a government bailout takes place. Then this mountain of debt is transferred upon the shoulders of everybody else via inflation. But if no bailout is allowed, then the offending bank goes bankrupt; its good assets are transferred to other banks, and devastation is localized only to the offending party. That's the way Free Market works, and its regulations are MUCH stricter then those of government regulators who actually allow fraud!

Also take a look at the cost of war, also made possible by fiat money!

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/us ... f_war.html

(Fiat = war) is the formula first derived by Rothschilds. It is a true one. None of the world wars would have been possible without fiat money fraud!

Thus Free Competition in Currencies, which necessarily kills fiat (which cannot exist without a government forced monopoly), ends most wars as well as welfare state, and brings to forefront Sound, 100% commodity based currency, which is the most stable, and the most honest monetary system known to man.

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/us ... _debt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://demonocracy.info/infographics/eu ... greek.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://demonocracy.info/infographics/us ... _debt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave
them the power to create money and control credit, and
with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back."
-Sir Josiah Stamp, former President, Bank of England

Thus, Free Competition in Currencies
is a great protector of Liberty!

[LoveIsTruth]

Ron Paul is Hosting CNBC for 43 minutes!
He debates the Fed, Gold, inflation, and Free Markets!
4/23/12

[LoveIsTruth]

Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman on Bloomberg TV



The debate! Ron Paul says inflation is THEFT! Krugman says theft is good! Ata boy! His name should have been Crookman!

[LoveIsTruth]

The illustrated history of you being robbed by the Fed

M2 Money Supply - AKA Inflation.jpg (51.78 KiB) Viewed 2773 times

Productivity vs. Compensation.jpg (60.71 KiB) Viewed 2773 times

The thing to notice is the difference between productivity and wages as the money supply increases more rapidly.

Solution:
Free Competition in Currencies. It kills fiat, a.k.a. legalized counterfeiting, (which cannot exist without a government granted monopoly, a.k.a. coercion), and brings forward a sound, 100% commodity based currency, like gold and silver, etc., as the PREFERENCE, of a truly Free Market.

[Jason]

The illustrated history of you being robbed by the Fed

M2 Money Supply - AKA Inflation.jpg

Productivity vs. Compensation.jpg

The thing to notice is the difference between productivity and wages as the money supply increases more rapidly.

Solution:
Free Competition in Currencies. It kills fiat, a.k.a. legalized counterfeiting, (which cannot exist without a government granted monopoly, a.k.a. coercion), and brings forward a sound, 100% commodity based currency, like gold and silver, etc., as the PREFERENCE, of a truly Free Market.

Free competition in currencies won't change that one iota. You can print digital gold just as easily as you can anything else. It just paves the way for adoption of a single global currency. Not to mention being unconstitutional.

Interesting partners Ron Paul has on this endeavor. Do you care to comment on Lewis Lehrman or Peter Thiel?

[LoveIsTruth]

The illustrated history of you being robbed by the Fed

The thing to notice is the difference between productivity and wages as the money supply increases more rapidly.

Solution:
Free Competition in Currencies. It kills fiat, a.k.a. legalized counterfeiting, (which cannot exist without a government granted monopoly, a.k.a. coercion), and brings forward a sound, 100% commodity based currency, like gold and silver, etc., as the PREFERENCE, of a truly Free Market.

Free competition in currencies won't change that one iota. You can print digital gold just as easily as you can anything else.

Interesting choice of avatar's, "Jason!" Between Kane the crazy, Legion the possessed, and Mummy, you are in a "good" company!


Now to your question: Free Competition in Currencies ends fiat by definition, because fiat (by definition) is a government forced MONOPOLY (it can exist in no other way because it is legalized plunder and no one likes being plundered). Free Competition is the OPPOSITE of monopoly. It removes the immoral use of government force. Thus, given freedom, people will freely and overwhelmingly choose an 100% commodity based currency, because it is THE most stable, and THE most honest (can't conjure purchasing power out of nothing) monetary system KNOWN TO MAN. Nothing better EXISTS! That's why it is ALWAYS preferred when government coercion is removed.

FREEDOM DEMANDS Free Competition in Currencies, which is nothing more than the expression of individual freedom to transact unmolested in any medium of exchange you choose. And Free Competition in Currencies demands 100% commodity based currency, because it is the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man.

FREEDOM => Free Competition in Currencies => Sound Money

It just paves the way for adoption of a single global currency.

Which is perfectly fine if it is a VOLUNTARY (as in NONE coerced) currency. A currency like the weight of gold or silver or some other commodity, which do NOT require coercion to operate. People gladly take them without threat of violence (like fiat is).

Not to mention being unconstitutional.

Really? Wrong! Where did Constitution forbid the existence of private currencies that people may transact between themselves? Learn to read!

[Jason]

Free Competition in Currencies. It kills fiat, a.k.a. legalized counterfeiting, (which cannot exist without a government granted monopoly, a.k.a. coercion), and brings forward a sound, 100% commodity based currency, like gold and silver, etc., as the PREFERENCE, of a truly Free Market.

Free competition in currencies won't change that one iota. You can print digital gold just as easily as you can anything else.

Interesting choice of avatar's, "Jason!" Between Kane the crazy, Legion the possessed, and Mummy, you are in a "good" company!


Now to your question: Free Competition in Currencies ends fiat by definition, because fiat (by definition) is a government forced MONOPOLY (it can exist in no other way because it is legalized plunder and no one likes being plundered). Free Competition is the OPPOSITE of monopoly. It removes the immoral use of government force. Thus, given freedom, people will freely and overwhelmingly choose an 100% commodity based currency, because it is THE most stable, and THE most honest (can't conjure purchasing power out of nothing) monetary system KNOWN TO MAN. Nothing better EXISTS! That's why it is ALWAYS preferred when government coercion is removed.

FREEDOM DEMANDS Free Competition in Currencies, which is nothing more than the expression of individual freedom to transact unmolested in any currency you choose. And Free Competition in Currencies demands 100% commodity based currency, because it is the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man.

FREEDOM => Free Competition in Currencies => Sound Money

It just paves the way for adoption of a single global currency.

Which is perfectly fine if it is a VOLUNTARY (as in NONE coerced) currency. A currency like the weight of gold or silver or some other commodity, which do NOT require coercion to operate. People gladly take them without threat of violence (like fiat is).

Not to mention being unconstitutional.

Really? Wrong! Where did Constitution forbid the existence of private currencies that people may transact between themselves? Learn to read!

Mummy is dead! LOL So is Jason for that matter...

Is it 100% commodity based currency (who checks that? enforces it?) or is it who controls the money (quantity)? Should it be the people (or representatives of the people) or the private banks? Which is the best course for economic freedom/liberty of the people?

The Constitution was designed for "we the people". Here is what the Constitution states -

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Prohibited of States):

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government - specifically the representatives of the people in Congress.

The states were restricted to gold/silver coins. Congress had no such restriction and was left wide open. Not only that but they also have the often disregarded clause at the end of Section 8 -

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You see one of the primary problems of the Articles of Confederation is that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos. The founders revised this in the Constitution by reserving the right to Congress to establish a single currency for the whole nation - which facilitates trade and prosperity.

The states are absolutely and completely prohibited by these sections of the Constitution from generating their own currency except for literal gold and silver coins. The founders knew the power of the money creation mechanism and reserved it strictly for representatives of the people via central government directive.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, explained it this way in Federalist 44:

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver.

http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where in the Constitution does it specify Congress cannot issue "irredeemable money"?

Under the Constitution the states may not "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." There is no such restriction on the federal government. There is no requirement in the Constitution that the coin that Congress is authorized to issue be composed of silver or gold, or even that it be backed by silver or gold. A reading of Federalist 44 may be convincing that James Madison would be opposed to a fiat currency, but that opposition didn’t make its way into the Constitution. Perhaps it was a given. I am not opposed to redeemable currency or currency that is even 100% commodity backed (gold, silver, land, etc). What I am against is competing currencies coming from private banks that the people have zero control over via their elected representatives.

With that addressed......How about competing currencies which Madison said was detrimental? Why would you want to open up the US monetary system to competing currencies which will most likely be dominated by the global private banks? As well as completely removing the remaining vestiges of Congressional power authorized by the Constitution?

This is the heart of the issue....not whether its gold/silver, paper, or digital.

So where do competing currencies come into this?

Ron Paul states -

We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender," explained Rep. Ron Paul in his in remarks introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011. "Yet, there is a section of U.S. Code, 31 U.S.C. 5103, that purports to establish U.S. coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender."

http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How does Ron Paul twist legal tender law into the powers of Congress? The term "legal tender" wasn't even in use then. Obviously the purpose of coining and creating money via a central authority as the government (versus every state printing its money under the Articles of Confederation) is promoting a single universal tender for the nation.

Legal tender is a medium of payment allowed by law or recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.

The Constitution states -

No State shall ...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

But that is only for the States. Congress has no such restriction. Again if you look at James Madison's statement in #44 about competing currencies from the states being disruptive to the economic well being of the nation then it makes perfect sense to have one legal tender. Which is why Congress would be the only authorized entity to "coin" money as well as protect that money from counterfeiting.

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States

We get further clarification from Ron Paul here -

One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar," stated Ron Paul. "Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.

http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't that by design as Madison pointed out? Isn't that within the scope and power of government stated above from the Constitution?

The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government. Remember that this was one of the central evils of the Articles of Confederation – that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos – and so the founders reserved to the Federal government the right to establish a single currency for the whole nation.

The terminology "legal tender" isn't even used correctly.

Legal Tender Guidelines

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/polici ... guidelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's is the basis of the argument -

When the United States was established, the U.S. Constitution outlined the basic framework through which government – both state and federal – could act on behalf of America’s citizens. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was legal tender mentioned, and this is a bone of contention still amongst those who see the Federal Reserve as an illegitimate institution.

First, the purpose of legal tender is to centralise the creation of money by creating monopoly control of the money printing press. This might be done to reduce the chaos associated with allowing anyone to issue bank notes. But it also might be done to inflate and increase leverage for taxation purposes. There are competing ideas on this issue but it boils down to a centralisation versus de-centralisation/States’ Rights versus Federalist argument.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ron Paul also conveniently leaves out the last sentence of Article 1 Section 8 (Powers of Congress) -

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And we see Ron Paul's goal followed by the selling point -

The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral," Rep. Ron Paul said in his final remarks while introducing the bill.

http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we are going to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral but turning to the use of a completely different currency?

Is that what he is saying? How in the world will that work? If we switch to another currency how would that prevent the dollar from continuing to decline? Because nobody is using it?

How does a global or international "digital" gold currency fit into this that Ron Paul has earlier stated that we shouldn't be afraid of?

And the likes of Peter Thiel and Lewis Lehrman?

The great irony here is that this belief in "hard money" is used as justification for completing undermining the Constitution via competing currencies which opens the US up to a global monetary system (and resulting control). Also Ron Paul has made a few comments in support of "digital" gold currency as well as not being afraid of an international currency. What is "digital" money? Is it hard money? The same money President Benson and Joseph Smith recommended?

[LoveIsTruth]

Is it 100% commodity based currency (who checks that? enforces it?)

Who checks that there is milk in the milk cartons that you buy? Who enforces it? The people do it via the application of the law of justice, either themselves or through a hired help. Dah! This is how Free Market and Freedom work!

or is it who controls the money (quantity)?

Who controls the milk quantity in the market? Money is just another product like milk. No difference whatsoever. It serves a purpose (of being a medium of exchange and preserving purchasing power), and the best product wins in the Free Market. No need for government coercion anymore than there is need for government coercion in the milk market. No difference whatsoever. There is NOTHING mysterious about honest money (as banksters would have you believe). MONEY IS JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT in a Free Market! Get it through your head, please!

Should it be the people (or representatives of the people) or the private banks? Which is the best course for economic freedom/liberty of the people?

Which is the best course for economic freedom/liberty of the people with regards to milk? Should it be government production of milk through representatives or the private farms? Oooo, let me think. They tried that through the government in Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a disaster. Money is NO DIFFERENT! IT IS JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT! Are you getting this?

You see one of the primary problems of the Articles of Confederation is that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos. The founders revised this in the Constitution by reserving the right to Congress to establish a single currency for the whole nation - which facilitates trade and prosperity.

The states are absolutely and completely prohibited by these sections of the Constitution from generating their own currency except for literal gold and silver coins. The founders knew the power of the money creation mechanism and reserved it strictly for representatives of the people via central government directive.

You are wrong again. The power to forbid or harass private currencies in the exchange between private citizens was not granted in the Constitution. It deals strictly with the money used by the government, and in it government is forced by law to use only gold and silver, as far as dealing with the states is concerned. But people are free to use whatever they want among themselves, and government has no right to impede them.

It was an ERROR in the original Constitution to allow government to coin money, just like it would have been a mistake to allow it to package milk or grain. We have a chance to fix this error by amending the Constitution. But even as it stands, Constitutionally: Nothing but gold and silver is allowed to be used as money by the States!

Where in the Constitution does it specify Congress cannot issue "irredeemable money"?

Under the Constitution the states may not "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." There is no such restriction on the federal government. There is no requirement in the Constitution that the coin that Congress is authorized to issue be composed of silver or gold, or even that it be backed by silver or gold. A reading of Federalist 44 may be convincing that James Madison would be opposed to a fiat currency, but that opposition didn’t make its way into the Constitution.

Really? The States are FORBIDDEN to use anything but gold and silver as money, and the Congress is charge with responsibility to COIN (not print!) money. Isn't it obvious from these two FACTS, that the Congress is to COIN GOLD and SILVER COIN! (Otherwise what would be the point in Congress producing money that the States are FORBIDDEN to use by the Constitution!)

Perhaps it was a given.

Aaaa... Yeah!

I am not opposed to redeemable currency or currency that is even 100% commodity backed (gold, silver, land, etc).

Good, then you are making progress!

What I am against is competing currencies coming from private banks that the people have zero control over via their elected representatives.

Then you should also be against competing milk or competing cars coming from private producers "that the people have zero control over via their elected representatives!" It is exactly the same! Do you yet see the absurdity of your position? Money is JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT! You would be violating The Fundamental Principles of Liberty if you endeavored to regulate that product by force.

With that addressed......How about competing currencies which Madison said was detrimental?

Madison was wrong.

Why would you want to open up the US monetary system to competing currencies which will most likely be dominated by the global private banks? As well as completely removing the remaining vestiges of Congressional power authorized by the Constitution?

Why would you have competing milk or car manufacturers? Wouldn't it be easier if we had one government controlled milk producer, and one government controlled car company? Imagine the chaos multiple milk and car manufacturers are causing with their different cars and different milk brands! It is horrible! (Not really). You do not understand fundamental principles of liberty. Money is just another product. This is exactly the same. And it is IMMORAL (and destructive) to forbid free competition, ESPECIALLY in the case of money! Money is TOO important to be left to government, and it is IMMORAL to do so!

Isn't that by design as Madison pointed out? Isn't that within the scope and power of government stated above from the Constitution?

No! The government has exactly ZERO authority to forbid or impede the creation and use of private currencies for private transactions. The Constitution put restrictions on the government, NOT on the people. This is the key point of the Constitution that you do not understand! The Constitution restricts the government, NOT the people. This is key you are ignorant about.

And we see Ron Paul's goal followed by the selling point -

The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral," Rep. Ron Paul said in his final remarks while introducing the bill.

http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we are going to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral but turning to the use of a completely different currency?

Is that what he is saying? How in the world will that work? If we switch to another currency how would that prevent the dollar from continuing to decline? Because nobody is using it?

Very simple! If competing currencies are allowed, as they should be, and the government debases its currency to rob the people, then the people will prefer some other, most likely gold or silver currency, which preserves and increases their purchasing power, rather than lose it like the un-backed paper is doing all the time (98% of dollar's purchasing power has been already lost)! This threat of rejection of a substandard (unstable, fraudulent) currency will keep the government, and the banksters in check, because if their currency is losing its purchasing power, people will discard it in preference of a more stable 100% commodity based currency (the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man)! These are the same Free Market forces that force the manufacturers to produce quality products that people want or go out of business! Free Market rules! And it is an expression of INDIVIDUAL Liberty that God granted his children.

How does a global or international "digital" gold currency fit into this that Ron Paul has earlier stated that we shouldn't be afraid of?

And the likes of Peter Thiel and Lewis Lehrman?

The great irony here is that this belief in "hard money" is used as justification for completing undermining the Constitution via competing currencies which opens the US up to a global monetary system (and resulting control). Also Ron Paul has made a few comments in support of "digital" gold currency as well as not being afraid of an international currency. What is "digital" money? Is it hard money? The same money President Benson and Joseph Smith recommended?

Does a Free Market impose "control?" Yes, the only control worth having! Voluntary associations of Free people. If that is the "control," I am all for it. Ron Paul is not afraid of competing (not forced) currencies because he understands that money is just another product, friend, JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT. The more different products, the greater the competition, the higher the quality! This is how Free Market works! And what Joseph Smith and President Benson (and Founding Fathers) recommended will carry the day in a Free Market, because it will be the overwhelming preference of the people ABSENT government coercion/harassment, because 100% commodity based currency, like gold and silver, is the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man, and THEREFORE, it will be preferred by a Free Market.

What we advocating here is Liberty! Freedom! Are you against it? What moral right do you have to use FORCE, to prevent or impede the people from using ANYTHING THEY LIKE as the medium of exchange? None! THEREFORE, neither does the government! (See the Benson Principle, a Fundamental Principle of Liberty).

Cheers!

[Jason]

If money is just another product like milk.....do you buy money just for the sake of having money? What service does it provide for you of its own merits? Toilet paper? Floss? Keep your pockets weighed down to prevent getting scrunched up? Design tool for your wallet/purse?

Thank you for clarifying your unconstitutional stance (and Ron Paul's by default) as well as pointing out your opinion that the Father of the Constitution was a screw up. Ahh the tenets of pride....

You can ignore Peter Thiel and Lewis Lehrman to your heart's content...but they may come back to bite you!

[LoveIsTruth]

If money is just another product like milk.....do you buy money just for the sake of having money?

Do you buy milk just for the sake of having milk?

What service does it provide for you of its own merits?

Milk I drink. Money I use as a medium of exchange. Each provides a useful service.

Thank you for clarifying your unconstitutional stance (and Ron Paul's by default)

What unconstitutional stance? It is YOUR stance that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because you presume the government has a right to forbid/impede creation and circulation of private currencies for personal transactions. That power is NOT in the Constitution, and therefore is FORBIDDEN to the government under the Tenth Amendment.


(Thank YOU for clarifying your utter IGNORANCE of the Constitution, for that matter!)

as well as pointing out your opinion that the Father of the Constitution was a screw up.

A liar as usual (no matter the handle you write under). Where did I say that? All I said that Madison and the founders made A mistake. Is it too hard to believe? They themselves predicted that their posterity will IMPROVE the Constitution, and provided the amendment process for that purpose! Will you argue with them too?

Ahh the tenets of pride....

Indeed! I could add stupidity to that list as well!

[Jason]

If money is just another product like milk.....do you buy money just for the sake of having money?

Do you buy milk just for the sake of having milk?

What service does it provide for you of its own merits?

Milk I drink. Money I use as a medium of exchange. Each provides a useful service.

Thank you for clarifying your unconstitutional stance (and Ron Paul's by default)

What unconstitutional stance? It is YOUR stance that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because you presume the government has a right to forbid/impede creation and circulation of private currencies for personal transactions. That power is NOT in the Constitution, and therefore is FORBIDDEN to the government under the Tenth Amendment.


(Thank YOU for clarifying your utter IGNORANCE of the Constitution, for that matter!)

as well as pointing out your opinion that the Father of the Constitution was a screw up.

A liar as usual (no matter the handle you write under). Where did I say that? All I said that Madison and the founders made A mistake. Is it too hard to believe? They themselves predicted that their posterity will IMPROVE the Constitution, and provided the amendment process for that purpose! Will you argue with them too?

Ahh the tenets of pride....

Indeed! I could add stupidity to that list as well!

LOL...products are used up or consumed (something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity). Do you consume money? Is it a commodity? You've just been arguing that it should be a commodity....not that it is a commodity.

Oh so its just a medium of exchange. A tool. Something to facilitate trade. Interesting experience James Madison had while watching the economic problems take place under the Articles of Confederation due to trade issues (as described in his treatise titled - "Vices of the Political System of the U. States"). You would do well to study his observations on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation (which a number of MISES folks are suggesting we go back to). You might also review his comments again regarding such in Federalist 44.

...it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?a ... 2727%29%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.constitution.org/jm/17870400_vices.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've provided the Constitutional references regarding monetary powers. Your response is that they were incorrect and that the Constitution needed to be changed by amendment (hence not currently Constitutional). Is that correct?

The 10th Amendment states -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem is that power was already delegated in the Constitution to the representatives of the people (Congress).

Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as well as

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And respective constraints were specifically and clearly laid out for the states -

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Prohibited of States):

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, pointed out that multiple currencies of the states were a disaster and thus they centralized that power specifically in the Constitution as well as restricting the states....then how in the world can you extrapolate that its okay for "private" competing currencies???

And if you are on Constitutional ground why do you need an amendment to change the Constitution???

[LoveIsTruth]

Good questions. Let's answer them:

LOL...products are used up or consumed (something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity). Do you consume money? Is it a commodity? You've just been arguing that it should be a commodity....not that it is a commodity.

Do you consume your watch when you use it? Do you consume your silverware when you eat dinner? Money is just another product. A commodity used as a medium of exchange. It is the money of free people, because it is the preference of free market absent government coercion.

Oh so its just a medium of exchange. A tool. Something to facilitate trade.

Yep!

The 10th Amendment states -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem is that power was already delegated in the Constitution to the representatives of the people (Congress).

Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Constitution is a law that restricts the government, not the people. Yes the authority to coin money was granted to the government, just like the authority to "fix Standard of Weights and Measures." It does not however mean that you privately cannot use your own units of measurement, like 3 "Jasons" or 3 "Mummies" or 5.2 "Legions" or 13.7 "Kanes" in your private transactions. You are free to use any units you like in your private transactions, but the Federal government is restricted to use only gold and silver when it deals with the States. So the restriction of currency and units of measures is for the government, which the people are welcome to use if they wish, but they don't have to.


To prove this I give you also the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So the people can do whatever they want as long as they do not violate the property of another!

And if you are on Constitutional ground why do you need an amendment to change the Constitution???

Because the Constitution has flaws. It is not explicit enough causing the questions you just asked me. So to make it perfectly clear, I proposed the amendment (Honest Money Constitutional Amendment), so that it would be HARDER to subvert the Constitution again by misinterpretation.

[Jason]

Good questions. Let's answer them:

LOL...products are used up or consumed (something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity). Do you consume money? Is it a commodity? You've just been arguing that it should be a commodity....not that it is a commodity.

Do you consume your watch when you use it? Do you consume your silverware when you eat dinner? Money is just another product. A commodity used as a medium of exchange. It is the money of free people, because it is the preference of free market absent government coercion.

Agree to disagree. A medium of exchange is a measurement of value. Its a measuring tool much like a yardstick, tape measure, scale, etc. That's why nearly anything that is commonly agreed upon as a measuring device can function as money (sea shells, sticks, paper, plastic, digital, etc). How do you consume digital money?

Yes eventually the watches and silverware wear out and are consumed. Otherwise there wouldn't be too many watches and silverware for sale.

Oh so its just a medium of exchange. A tool. Something to facilitate trade.

Yep!

See above.

The 10th Amendment states -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem is that power was already delegated in the Constitution to the representatives of the people (Congress).

Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Constitution is a law that restricts the government, not the people. Yes the authority to coin money was granted to the government, just like the authority to "fix Standard of Weights and Measures." It does not however mean that you privately cannot use your own units of measurement, like 3 "Jasons" or 3 "Mummies" or 5.2 "Legions" or 13.7 "Kanes" in your private transactions. You are free to use any units you like in your private transactions, but the Federal government is restricted to use only gold and silver when it deals with the States. So the restriction of currency and units of measures is for the government, which the people are welcome to use if they wish, but they don't have to.


To prove this I give you also the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So the people can do whatever they want as long as they do not violate the property of another!

Of course the Constitution restricts the government but the government is the people as long as representation still exists.

You should reread your Constitution. The restriction for gold/silver is on the states utilization of money. Has nothing to do with the Federal government (Congress - representatives of the people). There is no restriction on the federal government for dealing with the states. The states are restricted in their monetary dealings with each other and externally to gold/silver coins. I noticed you left that section out. Let me add it back in. Its pretty transparent.

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Prohibited of States):

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again there is no restriction on Congress when it comes to coining money. In fact Congress is even given explicit permission to make any necessary laws to expand on "coining money" if needed.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again very transparent and clear cut.....it would take a Constitutional amendment to mean anything different.

And if you are on Constitutional ground why do you need an amendment to change the Constitution???

Because the Constitution has flaws. It is not explicit enough causing the questions you just asked me. So to make it perfectly clear, I proposed the amendment (Honest Money Constitutional Amendment), so that it would be HARDER to subvert the Constitution again by misinterpretation.

Oh its pretty explicit. Take a pretty unique individual to portray what's there as anything different than what it is.....which is express permission for Congress to coin money without constraints as well as make any laws necessary and proper for executing on that power. The states are restricted to gold/silver coins and not allowed to coin their own money. Competing currencies was one of the major flaws of the Articles of Confederation. Its well documented and again only a very unique person can attempt to portray it as anything different.

Hence the need for an amendment....

And you never did answer all the "good questions" like this one -

And if you are on Constitutional ground why do you need an amendment to change the Constitution???

There's no way it is "constitutional" if it requires a change (amendment) to the Constitution.

[LoveIsTruth]

Agree to disagree. A medium of exchange is a measurement of value. Its a measuring tool much like a yardstick, tape measure, scale, etc. That's why nearly anything that is commonly agreed upon as a measuring device can function as money (sea shells, sticks, paper, plastic, digital, etc). How do you consume digital money?

Money is NOT just a "measuring tool;" honest money is also a STORE OF VALUE, because it takes EFFORT to produce. Paper and electronic signals take no EFFORT to produce, hence it is the essence of legalized counterfeiting. The Fed punches 12 zeroes on a computer and becomes the owner of entire industries! It is THEFT. It is legalized plunder. It is IMMORAL. It is evil. It is WRONG. And it requires IMMORAL use of government FORCE to coerce people to use it, because it CANNOT exist where Free Competition in Currencies exist, because it CANNOT exist without a government forced MONOPOLY. And you don't seem to understand it. This system is an anathema to freedom and to justice. Because it is THEFT and tyranny.

the Federal government is restricted to use only gold and silver when it deals with the States. So the restriction of currency and units of measures is for the government, which the people are welcome to use if they wish, but they don't have to.

To prove this I give you also the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So the people can do whatever they want as long as they do not violate the property of another!

Of course the Constitution restricts the government but the government is the people as long as representation still exists.

You are wrong. The government is NOT the people, even if representation still exists. Neither the people nor the government has the moral right to confiscate or violate the property of even ONE person. Neither do they have the right to FORCE him to transact in something he does not like, when he is dealing with another private individual. This is your greatest mistake. Government is NOT the people, and never was, nor indeed can be, unless every one INDIVIDUALLY and VOLUNTARILY agrees with it on EVERY point. And that is NOT the case. The ONLY government I would agree with in that way is GOD, and what we have is aint it, I assure you! Learn the Benson Principle, my friend. It seem to escape your comprehension, which is too bad, because it is a FUNDAMENTAL principle of Liberty, as it exists in God.

You should reread your Constitution. The restriction for gold/silver is on the states utilization of money. Has nothing to do with the Federal government (Congress - representatives of the people). There is no restriction on the federal government for dealing with the states.

Yes there is! What good is Congress coining aluminum money when the states are FORBIDDEN by the Constitution to use them? You know, NOTHING "but gold and silver Coin." Can you read? Not paper, not aluminum, not copper. GOLD and SILVER. NOTHING ELSE! What good is Congress producing money that the States are FORBIDDEN to use?

And you never did answer all the "good questions" like this one -

And if you are on Constitutional ground why do you need an amendment to change the Constitution???

There's no way it is "constitutional" if it requires a change (amendment) to the Constitution.

Really? What is this?

Because the Constitution has flaws. It is not explicit enough causing the questions you just asked me. So to make it perfectly clear, I proposed the amendment (Honest Money Constitutional Amendment), so that it would be HARDER to subvert the Constitution again by misinterpretation.

So the people are free to transact in whatever they want among themselves. But that right was violated by the government via misinterpretation of the Constitution (like you do). Hence the need for a clarifying amendment, that would make this perversion of the Constitution impossible. Get it?

The more explicit and clear the law is the greater the chance that the people will follow it to preserve their liberty.

[Jason]

Agree to disagree. A medium of exchange is a measurement of value. Its a measuring tool much like a yardstick, tape measure, scale, etc. That's why nearly anything that is commonly agreed upon as a measuring device can function as money (sea shells, sticks, paper, plastic, digital, etc). How do you consume digital money?

Money is NOT just a "measuring tool;" honest money is also a STORE OF VALUE, because it takes EFFORT to produce. Paper and electronic signals take no EFFORT to produce, hence it is the essence of legalized counterfeiting. The Fed punches 12 zeroes on a computer and becomes the owner of entire industries! It is THEFT. It is legalized plunder. It is IMMORAL. It is evil. It is WRONG. And it requires IMMORAL use of government FORCE to coerce people to use it, because it CANNOT exist where Free Competition in Currencies exist, because it CANNOT exist without a government forced MONOPOLY. And you don't seem to understand it. This system is an anathema to freedom and to justice. Because it is THEFT and tyranny.

Rant #1. Off you go again just declaring that your opinion is fact and truth all while ignoring facts, truth, and history. Good luck eating your digital money.

Agree to disagree. I'll stick with James Madison's perspective on competing currencies.

the Federal government is restricted to use only gold and silver when it deals with the States. So the restriction of currency and units of measures is for the government, which the people are welcome to use if they wish, but they don't have to.

To prove this I give you also the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So the people can do whatever they want as long as they do not violate the property of another!

Of course the Constitution restricts the government but the government is the people as long as representation still exists.

You are wrong. The government is NOT the people, even if representation still exists. Neither the people nor the government has the moral right to confiscate or violate the property of even ONE person. Neither do they have the right to FORCE him to transact in something he does not like, when he is dealing with another private individual. This is your greatest mistake. Government is NOT the people, and never was, nor indeed can be, unless everyone INDIVIDUALLY and VOLUNTARILY agree with it on EVERY point. And that is NOT the case. The ONLY government I would agree with in that way is GOD, and what we have is aint it, I assure you! Learn the Benson Principle, my friend. It seem to escape your comprehension, which is too bad, because it is a FUNDAMENTAL principle of Liberty, as it exists in God.

Rant #2. President Benson is probably rolling over in his grave at your constant misuse of his name. You might check his stance on the prohibition for further clarification of your erroneous translation...

Agree to disagree. I'll stick with King Benjamin and King Mosiah on the functionality of proper government that is instituted of God.

You should reread your Constitution. The restriction for gold/silver is on the states utilization of money. Has nothing to do with the Federal government (Congress - representatives of the people). There is no restriction on the federal government for dealing with the states.

Yes there is! What good is Congress coining aluminum money when the states are FORBIDDEN by the Constitution to use them? You know, NOTHING "but gold and silver Coin." Can you read? What good is Congress producing money that the States are FORBIDDEN to use?

Rant #3. Let me reprint for the 3rd time now that section of the Constitution (which you keep leaving out - hoping it will go away?) -

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Prohibited of States):

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The states cannot coin money and they are only allowed to use gold and silver Coin as a tender in payment of debts. No state may make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts......expressly forbidding any state government (but not the federal government) from making a "tender" (authorizing something that may be offered in payment) to meet any financial obligation (state financial obligation).....unless it is coins made of gold or silver (or a medium of exchange backed by and redeemable in gold or silver coins)....and the states cannot coin money themselves.

That restriction applies neither to the people nor to the Federal government.

Again nearly every one of those line items in that section is the result of complications that arose under the Articles of Confederation. They learned their lessons from the 1st trial run under the Articles of Confederation. From competing currencies to the states granting of "private relief". Thus in the revision called the Constitution...those powers were explicitly given to the federal government and restricted from the states - from the power of coining money to bankruptcy.

I'll include some comments by Constitutional scholar Elder Dallin H. Oaks following this post for a better understanding of the situation the colonies were under within the loose framework provided by the Articles of Confederation. Obviously his comments are at odds with MISES propaganda (writings of H.A. Scott Trask, Thomas Woods, Murray Rothbard, etc).

Again there is no restriction on Congress when it comes to coining money. In fact Congress is even given explicit permission to make any necessary laws to expand on "coining money" if needed.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And you never did answer all the "good questions" like this one -

And if you are on Constitutional ground why do you need an amendment to change the Constitution???

There's no way it is "constitutional" if it requires a change (amendment) to the Constitution.

Really? What is this?

Because the Constitution has flaws. It is not explicit enough causing the questions you just asked me. So to make it perfectly clear, I proposed the amendment (Honest Money Constitutional Amendment), so that it would be HARDER to subvert the Constitution again by misinterpretation.

So the people are free to transact in whatever they want among themselves. But that right was violated by the government via misinterpretation of the Constitution (like you do). Hence the need for a clarifying amendment, that would make this perversion of the Constitution impossible. Get it? The more explicit and clear the law is the greater the chance that the people will follow it to preserve their liberty.

You really want to go there? Who's misinterpreting the Constitution? The "perversion" that the country has been operating under for 200+ years? Who needs to amend the Constitution after 200+ years?

Its explicit and clear now. Plus there's a ton of legal (Supreme court cases, etc) and historical framework (Federalist papers, etc) one can rely on for further clarification if needed. Why do you think they made it so blatantly simple - the power to coin money - ??? Only a useful idiot could attempt to screw it up....

You never have addressed the Peter Thiel and Lewis Lehrman ties into this.

If we make to much progress here you might need to check into a MISES re-education camp.....

Rockefellers (and their master) sure are getting a nice ROI on their investment....

[Jason]

This should provide some additional context for understanding James Madison's position on the Articles of Confederation....

The thirteen colonies and three and one-half million Americans who had won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should reaffiliate with the British crown. Among the majority who favored continued independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United States should have a strong central government to replace the weak “league of friendship” established by the Articles of Confederation. Under the Confederation of 1781, there was no executive or judicial authority, and the national Congress had no power to tax or to regulate commerce. The thirteen states retained all their sovereignty, and the national government could do nothing without their approval. The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the unanimous approval of all the states, and every effort to strengthen this loose confederation had failed.

Economically and politically, the country was alarmingly weak. The states were in a paralyzing depression. Everyone was in debt. The national treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various currencies were nearly worthless. The trade deficit was staggering. Rebelling against their inclusion in New York State, prominent citizens of Vermont had already entered into negotiations to rejoin the British crown. In the western territory, Kentucky leaders were speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances with the Old World.

Congress could not even protect itself. In July 1783, an armed mob of former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to take Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When Pennsylvania declined to provide militia to protect them, the congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was a laughingstock, wandering from city to city.

Unless America could adopt a central government with sufficient authority to function as a nation, the thirteen states would remain a group of insignificant, feuding little nations united by nothing more than geography and forever vulnerable to the impositions of aggressive foreign powers. No wonder the first purpose stated in the preamble of the new United States Constitution was “to form a more perfect union.”

Now a group of colonies had won independence from a king and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would later describe as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Deeming secrecy essential to the success of their venture, the delegates spent over three months in secret sessions, faithfully observing their agreement that no one would speak outside the meeting room on the progress of their work. They were fearful that if their debates were reported to the people before the entire document was ready for submission, the opposition would unite to kill the effort before it was born. This type of proceeding would obviously be impossible today. There is irony in the fact that a constitution which protects the people’s “right to know” was written under a set of ground rules that its present beneficiaries would not tolerate.

It took the delegates seven weeks of debate to resolve the question of how the large and small states would be represented in the national congress. The Great Compromise provided a senate with equal representation for each state, and a lower house in which representation was apportioned according to the whole population of free persons in the state, plus three-fifths of the slaves. The vote on this pivotal issue was five states in favor and four against; other states did not vote, either because no delegates were present or because their delegation was divided. Upon that fragile base, the delegates went forward to consider other issues, including the nature of the executive and judicial branches, and whether the document should include a bill of rights.

It is remarkable that the delegates were able to put aside their narrow sectional loyalties to agree on a strong central government. Timely events were persuasive of the need: the delegates’ memories of the national humiliation when Congress was chased out of Philadelphia by a mob, the recent challenge of Shay’s rebellion against Massachusetts farm foreclosures, and the frightening prospect that northern and western areas would be drawn back into the orbit of European power.

The success of the convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention:

“There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.” 4 Truly, the U.S. Constitution was established “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord] raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.)

That the Constitution was ratified is largely attributable to the fact that the principal leaders in the states were willing to vote for a document that failed to embody every one of their preferences. For example, influential Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris negotiating a treaty and therefore did not serve as a delegate, felt strongly that a bill of rights should have been included in the original Constitution. But Jefferson still supported the Constitution because he felt it was the best available. Benjamin Franklin stated that view in these words:

“When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage over their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does. … The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.” 5

In other words, one should not expect perfection—one certainly should not expect all of his personal preferences—in a document that must represent a consensus. One should not sulk over a representative body’s failure to attain perfection. Americans are well advised to support the best that can be obtained in the circumstances that prevail. That is sound advice not only for the drafting of a constitution but also for the adoption and administration of laws under it.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-d ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

You call Facts "rants." You haven't disproved even one of the FACTS. You lose.

I'll stick with King Benjamin and King Mosiah on the functionality of proper government that is instituted of God.

You might as well stand with Micky Mouse, because you understand it about as much!

Again there is no restriction on Congress when it comes to coining money.

Then answer this question, What good is Congress "coining" (actually Printing which they are forbidden to do) "money" out of PAPER, when the states are PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION to use them? (Is anybody home there?)

The "perversion" that the country has been operating under for 200+ years?

Convertibility to gold was ended only under Roosevelt the traitor. So it's been since 1930's.

Who needs to amend the Constitution after 200+ years?

Its explicit and clear now.

Really? So how come you still can't understand that the states can use NOTHING but "Gold and Silver?" If congress "coins" (NOT! Prints! which is forbidden under the 10th Amendment. Only COINING is permitted, NOT printing!) "money" out of paper the States CANNOT USE IT, under the Constitution. Get it yet? Basic English comprehension here!