"All governments create a plethora of medals, medallions, certificates, promises, and warrants that may be valuable, negotiable, even fungible, but are not recognized in courts of law as legal tender. "

Really? Show me how that follows from Natural Rights. The only thing that you give up when in a proper government is delayed retaliatory force according to Rand and Locke. When the government forces you to accept payment in legal tender, which you are forced to take in settlement of lawsuit.

There is nothing really wrong with being a narcissist, but you, my friend, take it to a whole new level... Having disappointment in your own level of self proclaimed supreme authority is a strange twist however.

I think the real question is whether or not government can or should be the ultimate arbiter of economic contracts. I agree that all contracts by their very nature require three parties: the two contracting parties and a third appeal/enforcement party. Because government usually enforces social laws, many have also chosen to delegate to the government the enforcement of economic contracts as well whether as a matter of efficiency or as a matter of societal will. It is also convenient because in unusual cases an economic contract dispute can turn into a criminal matter. For these reasons, I think there is a substantial argument to be made for governmental involvement in contract dispute resolution.

That being said, the Founders of the United States initially implemented no central currency except for governmental purposes. 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, but that tender was to fund government operations only - it wasn't used by the general populace, who had their own private banking system. That private system worked well and prevailed for nearly 150 years until the formation of the Federal Reserve. Yes, there were certainly problems with individual banks and they would rise and fail just like many businesses, but I see that as a positive thing because it encourages competition. It also made it impossible for the government to borrow too much because they couldn't control their own debt. All that changed in 1918. Now we have a system where the government controls the money supply and has the power to devalue money simply by spending money and then mandating the rates of interest on that borrowed money - not to mention their profligate printing of new notes.

If one compares the outcomes of a central banking system with a diversified, private banking system, I think it is pretty easy to see that if one is going to advocate for a central banking system, one must also mandate a standard for its backing (i.e. precious metals) or the government will destroy its own people through currency manipulation and inflation. Those very same checks and balances are inherent in a private banking system.

yet the source of common law has come from the private courts of England...as govt law and courts of that time were corrupt and unjust...

Re: “What if I cannot perform under the contract?” As I said above, courts are tasked with enforcing the terms of a contract whenever possible. If it is not possible, a judge and/or jury can order an equitable settlement that substitutes an alternative value for the value promised in the contract.

If the debtor goes broke, then bankruptcy laws apply. The debtor’s assets are divided among the creditors. This still doesn’t require legal tender laws.

It’s true that barter will not work on a large scale in a modern economy. There will be demand for money as a medium of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. This demand can be met within the free market (in Atlas Shrugged it was met using gold and silver coins minted by a private banker). At any given time there will be one or a few preferred forms of money within a given society. The type of monetary payment can be spelled out for each contract – it often is today. A government-imposed “legal tender” standard is neither necessary nor desirable in an Objectivist society.

Yes. Everyone knows that. You cut and pasted from the US Treasury website FAQ. It came up in the "Which is worse..." debate. There dbhalling said that despite what the US Treasury says on its website, the actual law is the rule that the courts follow. He did not point out there, and I point out here, that the error in the Treasury's statement is that it does not identify the difference between "payment" and "debt." Payment is immediate. Debt is a contract for future payment.

Most of trade and commerce has always been over distances of space and time. We just see retail purchases most easily from our daily lives. But those goods and services had to get to us. We are what retailers call "ultimate consumers." In fact, we are not that, either. When you buy a lawn mower, you have made a capital purchase for the maintenance of your home, which is your place of business. The modern economists segregate "businesses" from "households" from "government" but if they are convenient, those are arbitrary. All households are businesses. And the vast bulk of things we find, make, and do, are delivered in large quantities on credit via debt across space and time.

Yes, I know more than you do. I am disappointed to discover that I seem to know more that just about everyone else on this matter. I have been granted awards by the American Numismatic Association for my research on the history of money.

The evidence of ritual gift exchange is known. I presented my sources in the essay above.

I found Rothbard, Mises, even Hayek, wanting. None of them actually pursued the empirical evidence of economics.

Numismatics Informs Economics
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
Numismatics: the Standard of Proof in Economics
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

(And just for good measure:
Murray Rothbard: Fraud or Faker?
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... )

What if I cannot perform under the contract? I broke a leg, my factory burned down, whatever... See above to Lucky. In an advanced society, it is a known fact that businesses competitors even, buy and sell with each other. Hardly anything is a "finished good" as everything can be upgraded or repurposed. I make cabinets. You make TVs. We trade and then enhance to create competing "entertainment units." If I cannot meet the terms, but want to make it good, you do not want more TVs, not your own and probably not a competitor's. What satisfies? Legal tender.

So, we have escape clauses. If I cannot give you cabinets, you will take one ounce of silver for each one, just say. That's fine for most cases. But most cases do not end up in court, as Wolf Devoon pointed out here in the Gulch https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... "The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch." Of necessity, courts deal with exceptions.

I agree that the law does not need to be made by the legislature. It can be made in the courts. Bench-made Law is the British system. That is why precedent is so important in rulings, especially in appeals, and most especially in Constitutional law. That kind of society would have very broad legislation interpreted by the courts in each case. I think that most people here would not recommend that. The consensus on the right is that "activist courts" are a danger to the Republic.

I agree, also, contra dbhalling in "Which is worse..." that under objective law in a libertarian society, all contracts would be for deliverables. "Legal tender" might not exist at all. When I "buy" a refrigerator for 2 oz of gold, all I have done is "sell" 2 oz of gold for a "common currency" called "refrigerators."

Every contract would be barter and each would have to specify all of the alternatives should performance fail. As in the example, what if my factory burns down before I can deliver the goods you paid for? I have to pay you back in whatever you paid with, apples, silver, whatever. Seems fair... Unless apples are out of season. What if I were buying your widgets with my gadgets, as would be easy in an advanced industrial society? The only way to pay you back for your loss is to give you more of what you have, not what you want.

Money solves that problem. So, the law (courts or legislature or executive) declare what is legal tender.

aside from everything previously said

Legal tender could be said to be ANYTHING a group of people have decided to accept as a form of currency for translations. That said shells, stones, petrified feces can all be legal tender if accepted as such by a body of people and/or its representative government (including the judiciary).

The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. The purpose of a civil court system is to adjudicate disputes on the basis of the individual rights of each participant, enforcing the terms of the contract whenever possible. If it is not possible, a judge and/or jury can order an equitable settlement that substitutes an alternative value for the value promised in the contract.

None of the above requires the establishment or enforcement of “legal tender” laws. Your article lays out the historical background of money, but does not make the case that defining and creating legal tender is a necessary or proper function of government.

Here is your key paragraph: “According to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, and in line with much else on the libertarian right wing of American politics, the proper functions of government include operating courts of law. It is for the courts that the legislature defines “legal tender.” If the legislature did not define legal tender, there would be no way to know when a debt has been discharged, or when payment has been made.”

I don’t think that last sentence can be supported. Any serious contract that creates a debt will include the goods and/or services that, if and when delivered, will constitute payment and discharge of that debt. Any question before the court will then become a question of fact: did the debtor fulfill his obligation to the creditor, as specified in the contract? The concept of legal tender doesn’t enter the picture – whatever the debtor pays the creditor is “legal tender”, provided that the medium of payment is one specified in the contract.

"Once again, this time on the Galt’s Gulch Online message board, my conservative comrades displayed a disappointing though predictable ignorance about money. For people who claim to honor the bourgeois virtues of trade and commerce, they collectively guard a treasury of incomplete, incorrect, erroneous, and falsified assertions. In truth, objective investigation demonstrates that the government has the right, the need, and the obligation to define and create legal tender." Mike Marotta.

Your Insults and assumptions are of no use in examining your question What is legal tender?

In your ramble you state " for tens of thousands of years including two ice ages from about
35,000 YA to 10,000 YA , strangers became friends by exchanging gifts" (pure speculation and of no value to the Question)

"In fact, very little trade is “cash on the barrel head.” It never has been." This is no fact.

Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

This is an informative article as expected from MM.
There is quite a lot I do not know about money but I am unconvinced by the argument for the need for gov to define legal tender.

When is a debt discharged?
When the terms of the contract have been satisfied. What else?
Should satisfaction be in dispute, then the gov via the courts make a ruling.
The concept of legal tender is not needed to answer the question.

Now the article mentions the case of a law ordering a quantity of silver to be paid to the victim of a defined assault.
Yes, a legit role for government in dissuading and punishing crime.
This does not create legal tender with silver, it only sets some numerical equivalence between the crime and the redress.