See my response to your reply below:
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
"Legal tender" is in the same category as "public schools" and the "military draft" - an illegitimate imposition of government authority that has no place in a free society.

You are conflating what governments do with what governments should do and would do in an Objectivist society. For example:

“Governments define ‘legal tender’ in order to differentiate their circulating monetary media from all of the similar objects that they create.” You have not established that governments have the right to create “circulating monetary media” – there are plenty of strong arguments based on Objectivist principles that say they don’t, and plenty of real-world demonstrations of why they shouldn’t.

“Once the government defines legal tender in this way, it become the definition that the courts look to.” Just because the courts (which are part of the government) uphold illegitimate assertions of authority by the executive or legislative branches doesn’t mean that, under Objectivist principles, such assertions of authority become proper government functions.

Your entire argument rests on your assertion that “the government has the right, the need, and the obligation to define and create legal tender.” As I have detailed elsewhere in this discussion, under Objectivist principles it has no such right, need or obligation.

"That is the reality of the market" means that is what it is, not what it should or could be. We certainly do not have to accept it, anymore than we have to accept government corruption.

You are asserting the government needs to define "legal tender" for the context of the court. However, the government did not have to define physics, chemistry, DNA testing, et al for them to be used by the courts. Two individuals can define a liquid means of exchange in a contract, and the sides of this contract can be evaluated by a court.

I do not see why we need a government definition to employ a means of liquid exchange, nor why private means for tender (liquid exchange) are not adequate.

The roots of "crime" (so-called) are in the violations of relationships between individuals. Harming someone created an obligation to that person. It was not a violation of what became known as "the king's peace" about 3000 years later. The tendrils of that can be seen in the "Draconian laws" of Athens.

Drakon ("dragon") was not his real birth name, but what they called him after he became the Tyrant of Athens. He made murder an offense against the state, rather than just a private affair between two parties or two families.

Note that in the Code of Ur-Nammu the payment is to the offended individual, not to the king or the temple. It is not "punishment" per se, but restoration. In the Code of Dracon, the punishment for murder was death. The victim was not "restored" except perhaps by closure.

You are forced to appear in court in the first place. You can be compelled to answer criminal charges. If you fail to appear for a suit in civil law, you suffer a summary judgment against you. You can be forced to appear as a witness. Courts are all about force of law.

When you enter a contract, you agree to some form of arbitration, often explicitly, but implicitly, of course, by living in society.

"Natural rights" (so-called) do not exist "in nature." Alone on his island, Robinson Crusoe had no need of rights. But when you live in society, you need rights. Ayn Rand in particular was explicit on that point.

Those rights are protected by courts of law that resolve disputes. You can goto private arbitration, if you contracted for that. If you goto the government courts, then you accept the government's definitions of things like "legal tender" and "chattels" and "appurtenances" and so on. That is why governments must differentiate "legal tender" from all of the other valuable things that they create such as military decorations and grants of title.
(My general reply on that is below: ttps://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/ae4436... )

See my general reply below: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Here and now, you do have the option for "private means of liquid exchange" and private arbitration. You do not need to goto a government court and accept government legal tender. But the government does need to define what legal tender is, if only for its own courts.

Also, you "object to it [legal tender] being manipulated by the government." That is a reality of the market. One of the advantages of tokens is that they remain permanent media for your business, even if you change the price of your goods or services. "Good for 10 cents in Trade" still lets you set your prices as prices must change over time. This is a selling point made by token manufacturers. (See here from Monarch, one of the oldest continuing token businesses:
http://www.monarchcoin.com/support-la...

See my reply below:
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Even if we accept the benefits of private arbitration, the government still must define which of its many valuable "coins" and "paper" are legal tender and which are not.

A point perhaps not made strongly enough in the original post is that the government - like any economic entity - creates many kinds of "coins" and "paper obligations." The OP showed the large gold medal awarded to Charles Lindbergh, a Purple Heart, and a deed for land. The OP image is of a Nobel Prize, which is funded by a foundation and awarded by the King of Sweden. They are not money. As valuable as they are, they are not legal tender.

Governments define "legal tender" in order to differentiate their circulating monetary media from all of the similar objects that they create.

Once the government defines legal tender in this way, it become the definition that the courts look to.

You can avoid government courts with arbitration. In fact, it is a complaint from some progressives that many contracts (credit cards, automobile loans) include clauses that take away your right to a court trial and allow only arbitration.

But in government courts, the government definitions are the ones operative.

It's difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which this distinction is more than academic.

Your delusion of grandeur is evident.

Buying a derivative costs money and time, plus there is counterparty risk. Buying gold with dollars costs time plus the spread between bid and ask. That’s why you should care whether the court awards you dollars or gold.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “To coin Money,” but nowhere is the word “money” defined in the Constitution. and the federal reserve is NOT PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Sect. 10. 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; DOE GOLD AND SILVER PERIOD , FULL STOP!!

"Bitcoin works."
Indeed. Yes!!

" When the government forces you to accept payment in legal tender, which you are forced to take in settlement of lawsuit."
Suppose I make a deal to provide software in exchange 10 oz of gold. I pay someone 1oz a week to help me with. The client is says the software doesn't meet spec and says he will give me 5 oz. I say all it meets the original spec and want the full 10 oz. If we go to court and I get a judgment, it will be in USD. If I'm unhappy with USD, I could always just buy gold. If I'm worried about gold going up (or USD depreciating against the USD) during litigation and collection, I could just buy a derivative to hedge against that. If the court awards me a judgment, what do I care what form it is?

I take away from this that Mike doesn't like DB.

The link doesn't persuade me. The arguments do not follow a logical flow. At one point the arguement is presented from another work that money did not evolve from barter. It evolved from gift exchange as a measure of credit. Ok, maybe, but since money evolved independently in many different places and times, I doubt each case is credit and not trade. Separately, it is irrelevant to the assertion.

I do not object to the government offering legal tender. It is convenient, like having a common language, or common screw sizes. I do object to it being manipulated by the government. Clearly other alternatives should and do exist. If the government did not offer a liquid means of exchange, another agent(s) would be the windows, OSX and Linux of exchange, and it would be fine.

Precisely how would a private means of liquid exchange cause a problem, in reality or to objectivism? Bitcoin works.

It's god's hairy balls, a curse like Jesus H Christ.

What does GHB mean? You are using some kind of in-group slang.

Your reply was not in the form of sentences, and yet you received 4 Up Votes. It is obvious by inspection that other readers are responding emotionally to the tone of your reply. If I understand what you are trying to say, you want me to prove that objective law follows from natural rights because you do not understand that it must. I am not sure that it must.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff pointed out that many students of Objectivism want to derive epistemology from metaphysics. That cannot be done, he said, because they are intertwined. So, too, here, are the proper functions of government tightly bound to those individual (natural) rights. One does not "follow" from the other.

Ayn Rand offered ancient Rome as an example of objective law. Roman law was not concerned with individual rights, either predominately or primarily, but is was objective. The law was posted for all to see and it was uniformly administered.

So, your call for perfection of an objectivist government is not relevant here. The fact is that governments do define "legal tender" and it is a benefit enjoyed by parties at suits of law in court.

I agree in the main with your perspective on this. I have worked for several multi-national corporations. The ones I know of denominate their books in US Dollars, even though they are headquartered elsewhere. Even OPEC oil is denominated in US Dollars.

The US Constitution empowers Congress to define weights and measures. But why? Why should the government impose some arbitrary choice? For one reply, when the legislature defines a standard - whether for money or time - then that is known for suits at law in court.

ITOH, it is true that as late as the 1830s many merchants along the Eastern Seaboard kept their books in pounds-shillings-pence. So, in a pure free market, all manner of alternatives might be active and be used to mutual benefit. Nonetheless, if "legal tender" is defined in law, then everyone can rely on an objective standard.

You are correct. The terminology here is not my native language when it gets down to the minutiae.

VIDEO: At the Speed of Money: How Cryptocurrency Will Transform Everything
* https://youtu.be/a53YgjlGM2c

CRYPTOCURRENCY: I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned #CryptoCurrency and the #BLOCKCHAIN !

Re: “Money solves that problem. So, the law (courts or legislature or executive) declare what is legal tender.” This is not a syllogism. The second sentence does not follow from the first. All the functions of money can be supplied in a free market, and would be in an Objectivist society. Through a process of competition a single type of money (or a few at most) would become the most widely accepted, and would be the monetary standard for most contracts. Competitive pressure would keep that money honest. No “legal tender” necessary.

GHBs! what is legal tender should not be conflated with the history of money

Good points


"They were pretty much constrained by the needs to fund the startup of the country to take on debt and pledge against that debt through the creation of some form of legal tender."

Legal Tender is defined as Legal tender is any official medium of payment recognized by law that can be used to extinguish a public or private debt, or meet a financial obligation.

Read more: Legal Tender Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/l...
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

The Founders did not create a legal tender by that definition. They did create bank notes, although they could have raised bonds for species or bank notes that already existed.