Slashdot Mirror
Legal Tender? Maybe Not, Says Louisiana Law
First time accepted submitter fyngyrz writes "Lousiana has passed a law that says people may no longer use cash for second hand transactions. The idea is to make all transactions traceable, thus foiling copper theft, etc. This move has profound implications that range from constitutional rights to Bitcoin, Craigslist and so forth; I wonder if there are any Slashdotters at all that support such a move." On the list of exceptions: people who deal in used goods or "junk" less frequently than once per month, and (drumroll, please) pawn shops. That means a pretty big chunk of the population who post in online classified ads in Louisiana are probably already in violation.
Sorry Louisiana, you dont get to decide what federal currency can be used for.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I thought this was a joke when I first read it. Apparently it's been on the books a few months though.
Speak for yourself.
...Leading the charge for stupidity.
It's only debt if the companies are accepting the goods without paying, as long as they pay up when the transaction occurs there's no legal requirement that they pay cash. Apple did a similar thing a while back when they refused to sell iPhones for cash.
Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or secondhand property and made payable to the name and address of the seller. All payments made by check, electronic transfers, or money order shall be reported separately in the daily reports required by R.S. 37:1866.
BitCoin is an electronic transfer, hence as long as it is reported it is as legal as everything else.
To me it looks like speculators have finished dumping and now want more buyers to drive up the price.
Anyway, this isn't a legal tender issue. Legal tender only applies for debt, this is why Apple can get away with no cash policies.
IANAL
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
n/t
So, if I sell a motorcycle on Craigslist and the buyer pays in cash, this is now illegal? That's somehow gotta be unconstitutional, but I need a lawyer for that... And can I pay the Lawyer in cash?
May I be the first to say... Fuck You Louisiana. I'm never going there and I hope you get wiped out by a Hurricane.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Doesn't this make all tag sales, flea markets and most Craigslist transactions illegal as well?
Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.
Losing the ability to use cash when buying or selling is one of the signs of the end times documented in the holy text of at least one major religion.
I'm not sure that the new Louisiana law would hold up in a court. Last time I checked US currency states "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". The key word being "all".
It would seem that this would be federal issue, not a state one since this can affect interstate commerce. Basically it's unconstitutional.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Can a state elect to locally invalidate the federal mandate that states that bills issued by the US Treasury are "Legal tender for all debts public and private"?
This may be something that can be easily challenged in federal court, and I truly hope someone does challenge it.
The worst part of this state bill is that every transaction, along with the verified identity of both parties, be recorded and submitted to law enforcement on demand.
I wonder how that works, since the government doesn't actually own that money. It is legal tender, provided by the Federal Reserve (which isn't "federal" at all, it's a private bank). It is loaned, at interest, to the government and, by extension, everyone who lives in the USA.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Wonder if you can get around it by relocating the server (and payment system?) to a state/country where it's legal.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Oh, I know, because it is unwieldy and likely an illegal invasion of privacy.
No, you don't have the right to find out what I buy. Not even if I am poor and can only afford second hand stuff.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
My understanding is that pawn shops are allowed to use cash because they're already legally required to keep detailed records about the individuals with whom they deal, and this law is all about making it hard for criminals to sell stolen goods without a paper trail.
But this seems like a case of legislatively throwing the baby out with the bath water: "I'll sell you this book of mine for $5, but you'll have to write me a check because I sold someone an old XBox game last week for cash." Or are small private transactions not regulated by the law (I haven't read the text of the bill, obv.)?
If not, this seems outrageous, and I'm all about the outrage!
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Embed gold in a counterfeit proof scannable pingable plastic coin and call it a day.
Step 1: Raise ATM Fees on customers
Step 2: Hire lobbyists to pass laws like this
Step 3: Profit
It's a crazy conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.
Indeed. According to this nice pretty $20 bill I have here, it is a "LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" and is signed by the Treasurer of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury. I'm pretty sure that, in matters of currency, their authority thoroughly trumps that of the Louisiana legislators.
How the hell did they even think this would work?
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I don't know if transactions are the same as "public charges" or not.
I'm thinking that this has less to do with trying to catch "criminals," and more to do with the state missing out on all that sales tax.
The first link in the summary contains the complete text of the bill. It does not ban cash transactions at all. Rather, it requires second-hand dealers to keep very thorough records of any cash transaction exceeding $25.
This is a terrible law, and would make business difficult for a lot of people, and (depending on how it's interpreted) could make garage sales more trouble than they're worth. But it does not ban the use of cash. I kind of wish it did, because then it would be struck down. As it stands, the law may pass constitutional muster, and become an enormous pain in the ass for a lot of people.
I wonder if there is any sane human being that supports such a move.
Fixed that for you.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
While cash can or cannot be accepted for transactions based on merchant preferences, is it allowable for a state to regulate that? Are there any federal regulations or others that may disallow this?
Are they going to get a bunch of undercover agents to stake out craigslist? And what happens when people figure out they're living in an evil distopian future? You can't start pulling this sort of shit on the average joe until it is actually too late for them to do anything about it.
The only way a transaction does not involve "debt" is if the parties involved agree to it before hand. And if there is no debt for the transaction, I dont need to give you a traceable payment. If I do, then its debt and US currency is good for it. There are a bunch of federal trade and commerce laws out there to back this up and it could also be argued that it falls under the US Constitution. Having a legal requirement that the government can track all sales transactions violates a whole bunch o' stuff.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
compromise individual rights and privacy. The US is well on its way to becoming the third world, totalitarian police state people like Cheney have worked so hard to establish. The Tea Party says they are for smaller government, but what they mean by that is less social help and individual freedoms and more police and law enforcement. Totalitarianism cloaked as freedom loving grass-roots.
Yes they can. They can regulate businesses within the state. They can't decide that Federal currency has no value, but they can definitely regulate record-keeping (which is what this is about).
Because there's no debt if the sale isn't made, and the law appears to be preempting the sale if the purchaser can't provide payment with some kind of paper trail. As I understand it, if you have an existing debt, and the creditor refuses to accept cash, then the debt is null and void, but there's no obligation for them to make a sale/establish a debt simply because you are presenting cash. Whether any other laws figure into this, I can't say.
Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.
To quote my $20 - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
In a technical sense, accepting goods places a burden of debt upon the recipient.
Sounds like something which will be brought to the Supreme Court, where a state claims rights in interstate (even if it is intrastate) commerce which supersede the domain of the federal government.
Interesting ambition, but flawed.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They aren't. This is why it's perfectly legal to refuse cash when you sell something. But you must accept cash for loan payments and any other repayments of debt.
Louisiana's Governor is the young GOP superstar, Bobby Jindal. Doesn't this move restrict personal freedoms in order to wring more taxes out of the populace? Is that the GOP way all of a sudden?
Because you misunderstand what is debt and what isn't?
So, "loan" the price of the item to the would be buyer. When they take a step from the counter, demand payment. It is now a debt and may be settled with U.S. currency.
This is just a law to keep scrap dealers from buying stolen metal. There's been trouble with people stealing copper power lines (this usually makes the news when someone tries to steal an energized one), manhole covers, and the aluminum access covers at the base of street light poles.
Much of the bill is about people selling railroad tracks and parts thereof. Railroad tracks? Do you realize what it takes to lift and move a railroad rail? That's not something one homeless guy could do. It takes teams, cranes, and trucks.
It is one thing for a private business to refuse to accept cash for a transaction.
It is another entirely for a government to mandate that ALL businesses (dealing in secondhand goods) cannot accept cash for a transaction.
As much as people like to give Apple a dick in the ass on /. this is a VERY different situation.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
How can Apple legally get away with refusing to take cash for iPhones?
...where PI is set to 3.0?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Well, in that case, the new law should be easy to circumvent: You don't sell the product for cash, but you give it on credit, and the debt is then immediately paid back using cash.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Yet another example of the wealthy politicians trying to hurt the poorest among us.
I don't respond to AC's.
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
It is when you spend a lot of time telling other people how stamp collectors are idiots and seek out stamp collectors to tell them they should stop.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, "loan" the price of the item to the would be buyer. When they take a step from the counter, demand payment. It is now a debt and may be settled with U.S. currency.
Or enter into a written or verbal contract which implies a debt.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
By saying you cant spend the money, they are in fact saying that it has no value. Next step will be for them to issue "Louisiana Fun Bucks" that must be used instead of cash.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I love how people over the years say I need to wear a til foil hat every time I mention that it is just a matter of time before the governments move to try to limit, stop, or remove the idea of "cash". Obviously there are Constitutional issues around this, but that never seems to stop the governments. And when it gets too annoying, they can just change the Constitution.
It is not difficult to imagine a world where anything that gives you freedom from being monitored, traced, taxed, restricted, recorded, etc, is eliminated. I keep hoping it will at least wait until I am very old. Younger people don't seem to care about privacy or freedom anyway- they only want safety and convenience, so let THEM deal with it!
So how much is that in cigarettes?
SCOTUS will have a field day with this.
hahahaha, HAHAHAHAHA, wat?
you can't do that. lol.
Is this a serious thing? IANAL but this could be attacked from a number of angles. Invasion of privacy. Regulation of currency beyond state's rights.
Denmark has had a law for a few years now banning cash payment of over ~13000euro, the idea being that anyone crazy enough to pay that much in
cash probably got the money illegally or "forgot" to pay taxes else the they would have put them in the bank and paid with a creditcard or check
It's not debt if you make payment at the time of service. Apple did a similar thing with its iPhone release where they wouldn't allow you to pay with cash so that they could enforce purchase limits.
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, "United States coins and currency are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
Despite the fact that Lousiana doesn't subscribe to the UCC, a debt is uncurred when you purchase something, until you satisfy that debt-- by paying for it.
I think the whole idea of passing such a law means they've been out in the bayou snorting swamp gas again. What a goofy bunch of elected officials. Oh, wait.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Most American libertarians still defer to the Constitution, however, and minting currency is something they generally agree the Federal government is allowed and even has a responsibility to do.
Actually, the libertarians on my facebook aren't too happy about this either.
I mean, surprise surprise, libertarians aren't happy when restraints are put on personal liberty by a governmental institution. Does it matter if it's a federal government or a state government?
The Constitution specifically reserves to the federal government the power to coin money.
In most cases, buy buying objects, the buyer hands over the money first. Hence there was never a debt,
If, on the other hand, the seller hands over the object first, then a debt exists and the constitution takes over.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I just read the text of the bill, and there is nothing about prohibiting cash transactions. If the purchases are a one-time deal between individuals and you aren't reasonably considered a second-hand junk dealer, none of the provisions apply to you. If you are in the business of buying and selling junk, the state is tightening the requirements for records of transactions to make sure stolen railroad tracks and other such items aren't being sold, which is already illegal. Seriously, does no one actually read?
What do we do about bullies? Put them through a rigorous alternative discipline program? Expel them? No, lets take away everyone's freedom of speech!!! Yeah!
So here again? Got problems with criminals pawning stuff? Copper thieves? Maybe make a law where IDs need to be produced to sell copper like how they are at the pawn shop? Nah, lets shove a tracking device up everyone's arse!
This government needs to be rebooted. Make sure you get stock of the required tools to facilitate said reboot. It's need will become dire in less then ten years. These politicians aren't stupid. This is very deliberate.
It makes no difference whether it is a "debt" or a "sale"; there is no Federal requirement that cash be accepted unless a State law says one way or another. In this case, State law is saying not to accept it. As someone living in Louisiana who rarely uses cash for anything more than a soft drink, I still think this law is yet another massive waste of legislation and I can't wait to see it stricken down.
In the Ron Paul thread everyone was bitching about the possibility of pruning back some of the government, then I come here and the government is the problem... I know, I know, one is federal and one is state. But I happen to see this a lot here.
Because when you take it to the register to buy, you are only making an offer to purchase. There is nothing that says they can't introduce an additional term of no cash to the agreement.
IANAL
What I see happening is that other means will be used, if cash becomes verboten. Take the scrap metal places who do the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" thing when someone comes in with copper windings and wire "obtained" from "defunded" construction projects. Instead of getting cash, the recycler would hand out debit cards with no name on them, but with the amount of cash on it ready to go. They might be tracable, but it would take a lot more time.
Another workaround would be to use a different exchange medium. The recycler pays the guy who comes in with the truckload of sawed off catalytic converters with poker chips from a local casino. If someone is smart enough not to exchange chips for cash at the exact amount, there is virtually no way to trace the transaction.
If push really came to shove, there is always barter, provided that people kept tax records to make the IRS happy.
This law was not thought out. All it means is that more people hit casinos for poker chips, and there is no way the lawmakers are going to ban/restrict those, unless they want Federal lawsuits from native American reservations.
Federalism, not libertarianism.
The libertarian position would be "no government gets to trample on citizens' rights, so anyone is free to choose what forms of payment they may accept or reject.
Let's extend the law to force politicians to never be allowed to use cash, must use a card, and any possessions that can't be traced back to the usage of the card given to the poor in their state.
That will stop bribery in its tracks!
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
The dealer writes you a check, you cash the check, you have cash. The dealer just can't hand you the cash. That's all this is.
A couple of dudes just got arrested for stealing a bridge. It's not inconceivable that their brother lowlives would eye railroad tracks for their self-serve bailouts.
Indeed. It strikes me that simply signing an IOU and then immediately paying it ought to take care of the direct cash payment angle. Just make sure you save the IOU along with any invoices and other source documents, and I don't think there's anything the state could do about it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But then you have government-checkable records of the debtor.
Anonymity is one of the most important benefits of cash.
What you're forgetting is that there isn't any incentive on the part of the dealer to do that. Ultimately, circumventing the law would almost certainly bring a lot of attention to the dealer and probably turn up a few cases where they unknowingly received stolen goods.
It's easier for the dealers to just follow the spirit of the law and have a stronger position in case some of the goods were indeed stolen.
How the hell did they even think this would work?
I have family in New Orleans. They have horror stories about the pervasive, persistent abuses of power by the police and the gatekeepers of government. At times it seems to me that there is more in common between Louisiana and Haiti than between Louisiana and the United States. If it wasn't for the fact that New Orleans is the export point for all bulk goods from the Mississippi River and Ohio River basins, and where the Mississippi and the Intercoastal Waterway meet, it would be far more trouble than it is worth. But then, that positioning is exactly why Louisiana gets away with what it does.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
(Cue the "baww, federal government doesn't get to trample on states' rights!" Libertarian shitstorm)
Either you're superbly ignorant of the libertarian philosophy, or you're maliciously and deliberately misrepresenting it.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I'd venture to say that the vast majority of stolen metals (especially copper) that's sold to salvage shops is stolen by meth addicts. I've seen the effects of this when visiting family in East Texas where I grew up 20 years ago. Meth has destroyed rural areas. Addicts frequently steal copper wiring, cores for AC condensers, etc. from homes, business and churches to pay for their fixes.
Too bad lawmakers are more interested in drafting Orwellian laws and running sick people through the system rather than helping people and getting at (a) root issue.
It is legal tender, provided by the Federal Reserve (which isn't "federal" at all, it's a private bank).
Actually, the Federal Reserve System is federal. Let me contrast it with the company where I work so you can see the differences.
1. The FRS was created in 1913 by an act of congress. The place I work was incorporated in Delaware as a Delaware company.
2. The FRS is lead by the Chairman of the Board of Governers who is appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is lead by the Chief Executive Officer, who is appointed by the Board of Directors.
3. The FRS is run by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is run by the Board of Directors, who are selected by shareholders.
4. Congress has oversight of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
5. The government sets the salaries of the highest-paid individuals of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
6. By law, the FRS has to give any profit over 6% to the United States Treasury. In 2010, the FRS made a profit of $82 Billion. They paid the Treasury $79 Billion. The place where I work, not so much.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I'm just curious, how exactly would they prove this? If I pay $20 to somebody for helping me move my furniture, wtf would Louisiana do? Break into my house (rule break 1), and charge me for paying cash to someone... with what? What if I am not obligated to pay my friend (which I'm not), but it still becomes a paid service, get my point?
This one should be getting added to...
http://www.dumblaws.com/
pretty soon.
Way to try and become a police state, thankfully it's just a state rather than federal. A federal law like this would spiral the world economy out of control and probably dethrone our government? This discussion would be better if we imagined this as a federal law, Louisiana doesn't matter in the least bit on a federal scale. Also, how did the people there pass this? Are they fuckin serious?
Its not just debts, its all public transactions.
U.S.C. 5103, Section 31 which states "United States coins and currency are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
This may be technically true, but this does change how business law looks at the transaction.
Someone can basically come to the cash register with an item, the cashier rings them up, then you can run out the door without paying because, hey, it was on credit. You aren't a shoplifter in this situation. The cops don't get called when you fail to pay for your car loan, for example. It becomes purely a civil matter, rather than a criminal shoplifting matter.
Isn't the law relevant to offering credit quite restrictive? Don't you need a license, or something?
Perhaps it's only when interest is charged that such rules apply.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
US legal tender law means that once a debt has been created, legal tender must be accepted in payment.
"debt" includes a sale agreed to but not yet paid for.
If the buyer and seller agree to an exclusion or limitation beforehand, then it's OK. Not sure if state law can mandate such terms beforehand.
(A store with a sign saying "no $50s or $100s" would be an example of a limit the seller mentions ahead of time which the buyer agrees to by making a purchase anyway.)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
So I just moved to Louisiana and I already do not like it much. This is just another reason for me to move out of this state as soon as possible. The State government here is terrible basically a whole century behind most other states.
Does this mean that the legislators of Louisiana can no longer accept cash for the bribes they get?
Not if the debt instrument is a piece of paper saying "debt item 014012212"
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
This information is not at all accurate. The Federal Reserve is our central banking system, but currency is still issued by the Department of the Treasury. I don't know what you're last sentence even means, so I won't try to correct you other than to say that it is completely wrong.
Verbal contract.
Problem solved.
Have them pay with a cheque, then redeem their own cheque immediately for cash. Problem solved.
GameStop certainly doesn't produce the games they sell.
On one hand, I expect the feds to overturn this pretty quickly. On the other hand, it might give them ideas. The love tracking citizens.
"Debt" is a broad term. It means "money owed." Maybe YOU should try understanding what that little thing means.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
So Louisiana has copper thieves. I work for a company that deals with this a lot, people just steal our cables and such. Run off with them... that's what we're insured for I guess. But are they REALLY selling the copper for cash? I'd argue they are not. Despite what people would have you believe scrap copper, steel and aluminum is not all that valuable. Sure, if you go to buy any of those metals they're expensive. But what a scrap yard is willing to give you is usually less than 50cents a pound... and if it's clearly stolen? 10 cents? How is that even worth your time?
Now, why would they be stealing it then? The internet has really spread a lot of information that used to be unique to a lot of people that didn't have it before. Metal crafts that used to be trade secrets not many people had access to now have burgeoning online communities. A lot of people are interested in Welding, copper smithing, black smithing, foundry work, Jewlery crafting, mill and lathe work etc... I happen to be one of them.
Now, have you ever tried to buy an iron ingot? Copper ingot? You can't. Period. You can find places online, that are very far away and charge ridiculous prices and crazy shipping charges. But to find Iron, Steel, copper, etc... you first have to find a scrap yard that will let you poke around. These days, not many will. With the decline of our industrial base so has the need for metals and fuel. I, for example, blacksmith as a hobby, and have to travel an hour and a half to pay $20 for a 50lb bag of coal. My other option is to drive 6hrs to a coal depot and pay $80 per ton, min order is 1 ton. since I don't have a semi, that's not an option. If I want steel, I have to go to a scrap yard and buy used engine blocks, cut them up... etc... etc...
OR, I could go and steal some park benches. I believe people are stealing what they can't buy. These hobbies are particularly popular in the middle south, where a lot of these thefts are going on.
(Cue the "baww, federal government doesn't get to trample on states' rights!" Libertarian shitstorm)
Surprisingly, a good number of libertarians would be against what Louisiana is doing.
But judging by your tone, you are less interested in such details and more interested in demonizing a group of people you are against, even if your current excuse for doing so is factually incorrect. But it is okay when you get to do it, because you aren't Fox News right?
Actually, dealers ARE objecting.
Companies offer their customers credit with interest all the time, such as 2% net 30 terms(pay within 30 days or get charged 2%) although they usually frame it in terms of a discount.
I have a friend who hops garage sales and such for stuff that he thinks has resale value, he then sells it on Craigslist. He has no interest in accepting cheques from random individuals, yet he would be forced to by this law. In effect he would be out of business (and onto the state support payroll).
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Relax, it's nothing more than a state trying to swat flies with a hammer, rather than shut the window.
You really think that it'a nothing more? Sayyy.... are you in the market for a bridge?
Many businesses have been refusing cash for years (e.g., Hertz, Amazon), and the practice has been upheld in the courts. The law about "all debts public and private" relates to the government, not to any business obligation. Several /. forums have already beaten this to death. The only reason refusal of cash is not more widespread is that credit card companies charges are so high most businesses enjoy the extra margin of a cash transaction. However, MasterCard and Visa both show that cash transaction are more costly than credit cards due to the handling costs (including 'shrinkage'). I bet that 99% of the value of all retail transactions will soon be electronic.
Of course its a debt, just a short lived one. They've just made the trade with terms that dictate the debt must be settled immediately.
All sales of goods imply a verbal contract.
Seriously, cash is being used less and less every year. What really is it needed for anymore that couldn't be done with debit cards and prepaid cards and the like? There would be some huge advantages to getting rid of all cash. For example, there would be millions of man hours fewer required for people to 'make change' all day. The federal reserve would no longer have a monopoly on circulating money and the national mints could close down at enormous savings for printing money, stamping out coins (what is more useless than a penny or a nickel?). The illegal drug business which relies exclusively on cash would be put out of business along with criminal transactions of all types. Sanitation would be improved by removing the need for people to exchange filthy little bits of paper and metal. And so on... While it seems 'radical' at first thought, (just as Apple did when they got rid of the floppy disk drive) isn't this the direction we should at least be attempting to go in?
There seems to be universal confusion on this point. May I point out that, just because a currency is legal tender, that does not make it mandatory? If someone wants to sell me a DVD for three boxes of noodles, that does not mean I can force him accept paper money instead.
Actually in most cases the buyer takes possession of the item first. You fill your cart, bag, etc before walking up to the counter and settling the debt. Even if it were the other way around there would be a debt, the store would owe me a debt in exchange for my cash.
Either way, it is clearly semantics. The intention is and always was that cash could be used for transactions.
Yea, you cant just think debt as in CC debt, debt is pretty much anytime you owe someone something.
If I eat a meal and they bring me a check, that check is a debt against me.
Can you buy an iPhone for cash, no card or account of any sort, in the US? Is this the only thing or type of thing that 'they' avoid selling for cash, just to be able to reach out and find you later? In the iPhone case, presumably, to be able to bill you for your carrier plan?
Out here in the Phoenix area, it's great sport to 'salvage' copper from peoples houses while they are living in them, and very often after they've moved out. The salvage dealers take identification, but we are kidding ourselves that the driver's license given is valid at all. Pawn shops do a slightly better job of identification, but that's not even the problem. There's no practical way to ID a hundred feet of Romex, or the coil out of an A/C unit. At least if I pawn a guitar, there is often a serial number on it. These copper thieves rip the unit off the side of the house, and once its gone there's no point in thinking you will even discourage them, since they fake their ID and disappear. Even if they could, replacing this stuff costs x100 the salvage cost. Don't bother to take the thief's rotten old Datsun pickup.
Louisiana seems to be trying to discourage this trade by forcing the salvagers/thieves to have some relationship with a banking institution, which most will not. I doubt it will really work - they will just create an industry to aggregate these salvage metals and sell them in bulk, and the seller will disclaim all knowledge. 'Receiving stolen property' charges would seem to apply to the dealers now, so how will those work in the future when they don't seem to be working now?
And there's always barter. Good luck outlawing that.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Wow, you did a good job copying from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry for the Federal Reserve, but it is still a mostly privately owned and operated bank. Just because it has public portions doesn't mean it is Federal. Also, the Congress can only oversee it. If it wanted, "it's decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government". That means it is NOT federal. It is only "federal" by name. This is why all money is loaned at interest TO the government. Why would the government loan money to itself at interest and keep the entire population in a state of perpetual debt if it was a federally owned and operated public bank? The answer is, it wouldn't. It is a private bank that is out to do EXACTLY what other private banks do: make money off it's customers.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Indeed. It strikes me that simply signing an IOU and then immediately paying it ought to take care of the direct cash payment angle. Just make sure you save the IOU along with any invoices and other source documents, and I don't think there's anything the state could do about it.
And thus you defeat the point of using cash.
The IOU must be provided to the state, essentially upon demand, so they can track what you're buying and selling.
If you can't produce an IOU, or any similar document listing what was sold and for how much and what the terms of payment were, then you'll be hit with this law.
Actually, that is wrong too. The other party can refuse to take money, but the very act of offering to pay cash on the spot with sufficient funds to do so extinguishes the debt. That means that you do not owe them the money under the loan agreement anymore. Most jurisdictions make it so that you owe them the principle to the point of the fair market value of their consideration to prevent fraud and unjust enrichment; but the interest is out the window.
So, instead of debt, louisiana is now encouraging me to exchange...
- exchange in like kinds
- exchange in like value
- exchange in bearer certificates
- exchange of unregulated securities?
- exchange in anything less regulated?
Well, Bobby Jindal (LA Governor) is a super-supporter of Rick Perry and that part of the Republican Party has always had a hard on for Andrew Jackson and his "the bank -- I will kill it!" quote.
All sales of goods imply a verbal contract.
Really? Helen Keller says "".
It may be legal for an individual or a business to refuse cash, but I doubt it is legal for a State to forbid the use of cash.
It's easier for the dealers to just follow the spirit of the law and have a stronger position in case some of the goods were indeed stolen.
Ah, the "if you haven't done anything wrong what are you trying to hide" defense.
Maryland has enacted a law that prevents store owners from buying items from minors which I also feel is unconstitutional. I know the point of the law, which is to prevent minors who cannot be charged with a crime from fencing items but it seems like an unfair restriction on the rights of minors. All of these laws are trying for the same thing, but would not real police work and investigation into thefts be a better idea?
Of all the things that "interstate commerce" COULD be used to properly squash, this is one of the few.
Thus requiring a contract for every transaction. Which is exactly what the law wants. Quite honestly I want to see this rolled out everywhere when it involves a transaction over 10$ (which is the amount at which transaction charges via credit/debit/checks make it unprofitable.)
While we're at it, someone should ban the use of pennies, nickels and dimes.
but there's no obligation for them to make a sale/establish a debt simply because you are presenting cash.
Your answer is right there.
ALL sales establish debt regardless of payment methods. Factor it into the price stating that it is going to be $x cost + $y interest = $z total. You have the option of paying it total at the time of transaction.. or paying it off slowly over time. Since you could make it layaway... then technically the deposit is paid at noon and the balance is paid in a separate transaction at 12:01.
Whether you pay by credit card, debit card, etc. it does not matter. It is all debt. Cash is then acceptable as payment towards debt by superseding federal law.
There are so many ways around this it's ridiculous. What this will really come down to is the first person that gets arrested under the law, and the first DA to actually attempt prosecution. If the state does not think this will get immediately pushed (and funded by advocates the whole way) to the US Supreme Court.... then they have some serious mentally challenged people working in the legislature.
All the state did is set them up for ridicule, derision, and a whole bunch of costs to pick a fight with the feds over it.
Legally, the question would be when the item becomes property of the purchaser. I'm pretty sure every jury in the country would agree that it happens simultaneously with the exchange of funds, or after payment was made.
Touché. As others have pointed out, a sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a Libertarian in most Slashdot discussions, so I may have been listening to the trolls a little too much.
The federal government is such a popular bogeyman that lots of people paint it with a broad brush, troll or otherwise. It is interesting to see a clear example of a federal mandate that the public almost universally agrees with.
The treasury prints cash which the Federal Reserve purchases from them (for the cost of printing, not the face value). The federal reserve does create money, in digital form, but not cash. The federal reserve does not loan the US Gov't anything. When a bank loans someone money, the bank borrows that money from the federal reserve who generally creates it out of thin air electronically but it can also be filled with cash which was purchased from the treasury. The borrowing bank is required to have a small fraction of the amount it borrows in reserves.
We discussed this is the last local political social engineering meeting*, and this is a well-known strategy:
The basic rule of SE is, that your target has to accept your input into its reality. For that, the best way of doing it, is to
00 start at the reality of the target, and then
10 feed the target a small bit. To maximize efficiency, you choose the bit as big as possible, so that it just barely gets accepted, but not rejected. Then
20 let the process of getting used to something do the work for you.
30 IF (NOT reachedTargetReality) THEN GOTO 10
While watching people getting used to it, and more and more arguing whether it was a acceptable idea or... a great idea, ;)
I recommend looking who the driving force behind this is, and to use your force on him.
___
* Yes, those aren't even unofficial anymore, despite probably existing for decades. Also: Yes, I'm pretty new.
Seems like this would be an issue for the Tax Man. Aren't you supposed to keep track of all transactions for Tax purposes anyways? My Parents moved us around a lot in the 70's and would set up Second Hand Stores wherever we landed for more than a month or two. They would buy at yard/garage/estate sales and then resell the items, fixed up or repainted if need be, at the store. Mom kept pretty close records of each transaction, especially at the brick and mortar shop, and I was told it was a requirement for the IRS, because a free and easy lifestyle ain't so easy with that kinda heat on your tail!
That seems simple enough, but how would it translate to an individual seller at, say, a car boot sale? (I'm sorry, but I don't know what they're called in the US. A trunk sale or bring and buy perhaps?)
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
When you are paying for something in a store, you are not in debt, therefore that wording above does not apply. The shop keeper can legally demand any form of currency he wants to... bananas, iPhones, jelly beans, widgets... and is under no obligation to accept cash. If you as a buyer don't like his terms, you can walk away. Nobody is indebted to one another here. However, if you owe someone money for goods or services previously rendered, you ARE in debt, and legally the person you need to pay is required by law to accept cash.
This may stop some copper thieves, until instead of saying "I have some scrap copper for you", they say "I have an original artwork titles pile of copper, you interested in buying it?"
It is then an new work of art, and not junk or second hand items (Artists have been doing this for years).
Why circumvent an illegal law. Yes Illegal. Currency is an issue that there is no doubt in the Constitution, it's a power expressly reserved to the federal government. It's exclusively federal precisely because they had so many problems with it during the articles of confederation where the US had several dozen different currencies that were all essentially worthless. The federal courts tend to take a dim view of any attempt by the states to circumvent federal currency and bank laws because the constitution is so very direct about that authority resting with the federal government.
So, no, the people can still pay cash for their politicians.
... is that there's a lot of poor people in certain parts of Louisiana (look at Shreveport, with an annual HOUSEHOLD median income of $30,526), and poor people are significantly less likely to have checking accounts. For transactions that cash is no good for (as one fine example, insurance purchased over the phone), they currently have to go to a store and purchase a pre-paid debit card for cash (to which there is assessed a large fee in the purchase of). A law like this makes that a mandatory purchase for significantly more circumstances, effectively adding a separate tax that disproportionately affects poor people and families, and is payable to corporations. I can't see how this is a good idea. I'm all for states' rights, but really, this is a horribly thought out law.
I wonder if this is a workable loophole for the debt vs upfront payment issue. You, as a buyer, meet up with the seller to buy his second hand item. The seller gives you credit and sells the item to you. You are now in his debt. Two seconds later, you pay him cash, because federal law states cash is legal tender for debts. Problem?
Actually in most cases the buyer takes possession of the item first.
You haven't taken any sort of legal possession of the stuff in your shopping cart.
Even if it were the other way around there would be a debt, the store would owe me a debt in exchange for my cash.
Which they could satisfy by returning your cash.
Or they can hand over the goods you are trying to buy instead.
In any case, there really is no debt. The transaction is settled without the creation of debt. The goods are presumed to have changed ownership at the time of the transaction. There is no silly 11 seconds of debt where you've paid them and they're waiting for your receipt to print and haven't pushed your bag over the counter to you yet.
The intention is and always was that cash could be used for transactions.
Actually no. The intention really was just with respect to actual debts, that you could always satisfy a bill collector with legal tender... he couldn't say no to federal currency and walk off with a few of your goats against your will.
It gaurantees that federally issued currency would be acceptable for debts.
It doesn't gaurantee that it would be acceptable for transactions. Its always been the case that if someone didn't want to use currency, that they could simply refuse to transact with you.
I can imagine already how the kids in school are going to have Pokémon card black markets...
Maybe a bit off topic but why is this story being displayed with a Bitcoin avatar? Just because the submitter somehow thinks that they're coming for his Bitcoins next? Give me a fucking break.
But that's irrelevant, as the law the summary (and presumably the article) references doesn't just say you're not required to accept cash, but that you're not permitted to use it.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
YES! That is why more of the 'debt' talk kin the US is FUD. It's used as if all out payment are on credit cards and they are due; when in fact it's a normal part of business.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
verbal contract anyone? Or just for fun, let's consider implied-in-fact contracts...
"I promise to pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
Great point, sexconker:
If you can't produce an IOU, or any similar document listing what was sold and for how much and what the terms of payment were, then you'll be hit with this law.
Privacy keeps eroding towards no anonymity. This law does appear to restrict (and ultimately reduce) anonymous transactions.
What economic motive would provide an incentive to trace all second-hand transactions?
Tax motive: ideally taxes were paid on the first sale; are they required on all subsequent sales?
Raw consumption motive: discourages purchasing of "junk" to encourage more retail consumption?
Corporate motive: someone has to keep track of this data, a government contract winner would be excited for the data mining potential.
Other motive?
with a real problem.
If you are a trader or recycler of copper; then yes, a traceable transaction should happen. In fact, the person should show proof of ownership befor getting any money.
Copper thieves are a real problem. If they can't get money for what the stole, they will stop stealing it.
Maybe make it on transaction that are more then 10 OZs, or obviously industrial items. Hmm, you have 40 feet of copper pipe. lets just see if anyone has reported any missing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, but who do you investigate 250 feet of copper pipe that has taking from a yard by people in hoods and masks?
Why, you look to see if anyone has received those goods. What they want is a law that give the police someplace to look. This implementation is too heavy handed, but there point is a good one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And hence they have the names of the party's involved which is what the nosey dorks wanted in the first place.
This is a stupid law that tries to hide the symptoms of a larger problem. Who the hell voted these people into office?
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Sounds like a flea market/swap meet.
Agreed. I seriously doubt the US Federal Government would stand idly by as state after state decided to ban the use of cash as a form of legal tender. Contrary to what other posters have said, the way I interpret the statement that cash is "legal tender for all debts" is not that those who are owed money are required to accept cash, but that the government must recognize cash as an acceptable form of payment for all debts (and not just those resulting from loans, either).
Louisiana is stepping on the Federal Government's toes by banning the use of cash in this manner. If their goal is to make all transactions traceable, it seems to me they'll have to find a different way to go about it.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Not really, that only applies to privacy, not to businesses that deal in items likely to be stolen.
... and the debt is then immediately paid back using cash.
Or not.
Not from a legal standpoint. There has to be credit extended for it to be debt. When I go to the store, I don't get to just walk out of the store mid transaction without having handed over my money. The reason I can't do that is because ownership wasn't transferred to me until the store received payment for the goods I was buying. Until the store gets its money there was no transaction and up until that point in time either party can back out of the deal, although in practice stores rarely do so.
Your $20 is a future interest Work Permit otherwise known as a Bill,
while my non-Bill $20 under The Coinage Act is a Stock Certificate and Warehouse Receipt on it's own Face!
Figure it out: you aren't allowed to buy or sell but by coerced unjust weights and measures of future interests traded presently as insecured debt.
Currency was originally used as an "adjustment" to make complete TRADES of unrelated values, like how one year a 1lb o'apples and $1 Bill will be EQUAL VALUE to trade for 1-Bunch Banannas.
Until cigarettes are outlawed, too.
In a technical sense, accepting goods places a burden of debt upon the recipient.
Really? I can walk into a store, grab a bunch of shit, and walk out saying "I owe you one?" Wait a second... We have a name for that, it's THEFT, not debt.
it [transfer of ownership] happens simultaneously with the exchange of funds, or after payment was made.
As I understand it, under Napoleonic law, you would be correct. But in most (all?) jurisdictions that have descended from English Common Law, transfer of ownership happens when the goods are delivered. I know this from personal experience.
or they can just not record the transactions and keep the state out of it creating a bigger mess. the news report says it was was targeted at criminals, but its just gonna turn people into criminals including ma and pa kettle. but you can still pawn your neighbors vcr(lol) for cash.
State Law takes precedence over federal law unless it is in the constitution of the United States of America. Oh, how i wish the general population would remember this fact.
So you need an EFTPOS terminal to have a yard sale?
Unless the dealer is buying your "secondhand" items knowing full well that they don't want them to be traced.
A state cannot declare cash unfit for payment of a legal debt. Period. If company provides me with a product and/or service, upon which they have set a price, and I agree to pay said price for said product/service, then I have accumulated a legal debt to them (and if I walk out without paying it, they can have me arrested).
I, in turn, can pay CASH as legal tender for my debt, unless the Vendor has specified that some other form of payment is required and I have agreed to those terms. A state government does not get to arbitrarily specify what constitutes legal tender. If they did, the states could all issue their own currencies.
Cue the "baww, federal government doesn't get to trample on states' rights!" Libertarian shitstorm
knee jerk much? and i mean YOU, not the libertarians.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Good point, the private owners of the Federal Reserve are just other banks. To become a nationally chartered bank you must own stock in of one of the regional federal reserve banks.
verbal contract anyone? Or just for fun, let's consider implied-in-fact contracts...
"I promise to pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
Then when the state decides to "investigate" you, you'll have to divulge the terms of those verbal contracts.
Verbal contracts aren't a fucking magic wand to make this law go away.
The law states that second hand cash sales are verboten. If you want to introduce some sort of debt scheme so cash can be used, you'll need to document that scheme and provide that documentation to the authorities when they hassle you. If the entire agreement was verbal, or a fucking wink and a nod, you'll still have to divulge the details of who, what, when, where, and how much.
once an offer of sale is made, a response with an offer of tender constitutes a sale. cash is legal tender. a sale establishes an obligation to settle. until such time that the person offering a tender settles it (ie, delivers the tender), a debt exists.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
yeah, they won't care about your casual business with your friend. Now if your friend starts up his own moving company, and does it regularly, they will care.
Most of the time laws aren't really worried about. Building codes, license inspections, speed limits...not so much.
Till it matters.
Verbal contracts aren't a fucking magic wand to make this law go away.
The law states that second hand cash sales are verboten. If you want to introduce some sort of debt scheme so cash can be used, you'll need to document that scheme and provide that documentation to the authorities when they hassle you. If the entire agreement was verbal, or a fucking wink and a nod, you'll still have to divulge the details of who, what, when, where, and how much.
True. But in any scenario where someone is actually bothering to ASK you have to provide the details anyhow. If someone comes to me and sells me stolen copper, paying cash, I can be subpoenaed to tell all the details of the transaction. In order to get that same information on my IOU records, or to ask about verbal contracts, they would likewise need a subpoena or a warrant...
Can you define by statute what is adequate evidence of intent? I note the statute says that failure of a dealer to obtain from a seller a statement that they are the owner of the goods is prima facia evidence of fraud. So a legislature could define, say, having your eyes open as evidence of intent to commit murder? There would be other requirements (an actual homicide) but that could be enough to show intent to murder?
Extending credit to every stranger who says they want to buy something from you? That's so 2007.
Of course most of the copper thieves probably already work for demolition contractors and their business model involves sneaking it out of the scrap containers and selling it on their own for more cash!
We ain't taking no damn yankee bills down here in Dixie...
Seriously, this is one mental law. There is just no way this can be constitutional.
I'm not aware of any license required to offer credit, with or without interest. There are some interesting rules if you are offering credit as your primary form of business, to prevent loansharking, but I can make you a loan tomorrow with a formal contract, including interest and repayment terms.
If he started his own moving company and didn't post his revenue to the IRS, then the federal government already cares, ask anybody in prison for tax evasion.
I can see your point though, just that the law is a little ridiculous to enforce.
It's both. The act is theft. But even having stolen an item you are obligated to pay for it and have thus incurred a debt against the owner. Indeed, we've collectively decided in order to discourage crime, that in addition to the actual value you owe, in addition you have a debt to society to be repaid with a fine or prison time. And before someone gets all huffy about paying with cash instead of prison time, it's pretty obvious that there are different kinds of debt.
I think this is a stupid law, but I don't think "it's inconvenient for my friend" is a good argument against it. We'd never pass *anything* if that were enough reason to nix something.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
can any body say BIG BROTHER ?
Really there's no incentive for dealers to service customers who want to pay in cash? Wouldn't selling their wares and services be a pretty good incentive?
Haven't paid with a credit card, have you? Or a debit card? Or a check?
All three of them have a delay between the time you swipe the card and the money is transferred to the recipient. Usually of more than a day.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You really don't know what libertarianism is about, do you.
I'm feeding the troll.. but what the hell.
I don't want to be accomplice to the shakedown that the CC companies/banks do to the retailers. I've seen it, and it is wrong.
I don't want to have my bank account drained because I wasn't paranoid with my security.
I don't care to have my interest rate adjusted on the whim of the CC company.
I don't want to lose the ability of being anonymous, once qwick-e-mart stops accepting cash in your electronic retail monopoly, your SOL for keeping your anonymity.
I don't want to be at the total mercy of a credit score, without a decent credit score you can't get a debit cart (ok, you can but most agreements are abusive), and getting a CC is going to be expensive. The MasterCard society can really enforce an underclass.
This changes the illicit drug trade, some would argue that tracing the cash in a low cash society will be easier. However this creates a side effect that dealers will need to change to alternate fungible goods, or infiltrate legitimate businesses in order to launder CC drug deals. A junkie will find a way to get a fix, this could have some very unpredictable side effects.
I think that E-pay has a place in society, but not as a total replacement for cash.
When you pay for a transaction you are paying off a debt.
Let's skip over the "federal vs state" thing entirely... if the idea is to prevent transactions without a paper trail, does this mean that barter will also be outlawed?
I am not inclined to let the governement (any government, at any level) tell me what I can and can't trade with/for.
Let's assume the lawmakers sidestep the issue with "You can trade anything for any other thing, so long as there's a paper trail." What happens to the kid who trades his pudding cup for somone else's PB&J sammich at lunchtime? Do we fine and/or jail him for a receipt-less transaction?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
It works this way because money IS debt. If you have $100 that means you are owed $100 worth of stuff. All banks create money by making loans. If you buy a house by getting a loan, the bank "pays" the seller by writing down a number somewhere that says the bank owes the "seller" this much money. Voila, money has been created. The house seller can then trade that promise from the bank to someone else for something else. And banks don't have a monopoly on the creation of money either. If you give some item to your friend for a payment but the recipient doesn't have cash on-hand and you're willing to take the cash tomorrow, that's a debt. The only thing preventing it from also being "money" is that people in general probably don't trust your friend enough to take his word that he'll pay up, and so you probably can't go around buying things with his IOUs. But banks we do trust, so their word is money. If your "friend" is a trustworthy corporation, then the IOU is called a bond, and yeah it's money.
The problem with our legislative system is that there is no prior restraint on enacting unconstitutional laws. This is going to go to court as a test case. Its going to cost someone big bucks to defend, where the law will eventually be thrown out. And until that's done Louisiana can use it to bully people, right or wrong.
Have gnu, will travel.
In that case, there is a debt, but it's in the other direction, so when you hand over the cash the only legal way for them to remedy this debt is to pay you back with cash and not with the goods that you want to purchase. This makes buying things difficult.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I don't like Libertarians standing in the way of my right to solve problems that require the structure of government to be solved.
Ahhh... no. Both wrong. The IRS does not accept cash payment, and there is nothing you can do to make it accept cash. Same thing goes for the local DMV, many state and municipal courts as well. It IS legal tender, but they don't have to take it.
The dealer could just pay them with an electronic transaction to a "gift card" then immediately buy the card from them for cash...
No. The federal government HAS to charge an interest when it loans money to itself. If they didn't they would be printing money, which would devaluate the dollar. It has nothing to do with making money, it has to do with preserving faith in the dollar by not just printing them.
Credit is extended. Ownership is transferred on delivery of the goods or service. It is actually fairly common for the terms of credit to require immediate payment.
This is even easier to see with services. If I get a haircut and walk out without paying I can be arrested. That doesn't change the fact that the service is given first and the payment after therefore between receiving the service and paying for it I owed a debt.
I exercise my rights in this regard all the time. I can often be seen drinking a soda or munching on a snack that I will pay for on my out of the establishment.
If people can't use cash for transactions, it might encourage people to barter more. This is every govt's worst case scenario, since there is no records to collect taxes from.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
Stores can refuse to accept cash. Plenty of places I walk in to already say "no bills above $20 accepted". Stores are allowed to refuse a bill if they suspect it is counterfeit of course even if they don't have proof. The difference is that the law here is forcing businesses to not take cash instead of letting them decide on their own.
Maybe that's why their "implied" not "required"!
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
I understand that, but my friend is only an example of the type of people it will impact.
I think this is a case of the legislature being stupid retards...
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
This law benefits banks though. You're required to use banking transactions: cashier checks, credit cards, wire exchange. What the law forbids is bypassing the bank by using cash for second hand purchases.
It's just another case of poorly thought out law pushed out too quickly by legislators who don't understand basic laws. Probably the author didn't think any further once someone law enforcement whispered in his ear that it was a good idea.
If you don't support this law, then I hope you weren't one of the ones lashing out at Apple back then.
Your argument is invalid, flawed at its core. You are arguing that:
if (We think cash should be a legal transaction tender for any transaction)
then (We should not be arguing that Apple could refuse cash as payment for an iPhone);
In essence, you have stated that if we hate spaghetti, we should not be complaining about being force-fed spaghetti.
You fail at logic; Thank you for playing, please try again.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Or if the dealer is buying your perfectly legal second hand item and you don't have a merchant account for a credit or debit card. Is it possible for a shop to simply put a credit on your debit card without you purchasing something from them first?
+1 Disagree
- And if there is a loss who covers it? the Tax Payer
- Who are the Shareholders? the Banks
- Who gets the 6%? the Banks and Board of Governors
- Who can do business with Federal Reserve? the banks
- Does Congress know everything that goes in the Federal Reserve? Nope, Fighting for an audit.
Does not sound to federal to me. Sound like a private bank for private bank with limited
to none federal oversight.
I dunno this whole post sounds awfully indistinguishable from Libertarianism....
+1 Disagree
None of those are really relevant to the topic at hand.
I'm not sure why you brought them up, not sure why you asserted I'd never used them? And not sure why you assumed I didn't know how they worked.
Are you just trolling?
I don't recall the Uniform Commercial Code being adopted in Louisiana. Theirs is a legal system not based on English common law (judicial supremacy), but rather a mix of pre-Napoleonic French Law (The territory was acquired from France shortly before the enactment of Code Napoleon in 1804) and Spanish Law (lesser weight given to judicial precident) where not displaced by the US Constitution, federal statute and federal case law. With the passage of the mandated drinking age of 21, the state constitution of Louisiana had to be amended to comply be changing the section guaranteeing all adult privileges to those reaching the age of majority (18).
I-ANAL
The IRS does not accept cash payment
A quick google search suggests the above is pure BS. The IRS does take cash if you are willing to go to the proper office.
Well, they could, but then they may want to charge you an additional 33% as uncollected tax on that untraceable cash. And if you pay that in cash, you owe 33% for that, and so on, until you've either given them nearly 1.5 times what you originally owed in a convergent series (e.g. $1 + $.33 + $.11 + $.04 + $.01 == $1.49) or give them something traceable.
Meanwhile, I'm imagining a music video featuring Twisted Sister propagandizing the refusal of cash for all purchases: "We're not gonna take it / No, we ain't gonna take it / We're not gonna take it anymore!" People with wheelbarrows full of cash being turned away from businesses and registers being chucked into the trash, replacing them with card readers and fingerprint- and iris-scanners. "Louisiana: Your Cash Is No Good Here."
I should propose that as an ad for the Colbert SuperPAC to run.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Seems like you are stretching the definition of Federal to match your argument.
Libertarians might agree with that, but they would also tell you, through their spittle encrusted beards, that the FedGov has no monopoly on minting coins or issuing currency.
Something about the Dewey Decimal system? Or Reagan?
Didn't think so. It doesn't block cash sales at all.
http://www.mygov365.com/legislation/view/id/4db66f7549e51bd334be0300/tab/versions/
...will have cash.
But since they're **already criminals** why would anyone with half a brain think the criminals would give a damn about the law that prohibits them from selling ill gotten goods for cash?
Hell, it's already illegal to knowingly accept stolen goods. Now they're tacking on that you can't pay for them in cash either. Nice double whammy that isn't going to actually effect the change the legislature is claiming to be looking for.
Any organized body that exists for the sole purpose of organizing something else is a "governmental institution" in the loosest sense of the term. As such, there's amazingly little that Libertarians should not be objecting to if it were truly "governmental institutions" they objected to. The reality is that the definition of "governmental" is shaped to include everything the defining Libertarian is opposed to and exclude anything they are not opposed to.
I have absolutely no objection to people being selective (although I would prefer it if people used objective criteria and were open to those criteria being falsified - and that's true of people of all political persuasions). I do object to using personally-defined vocabulary as if it were universal and I certainly object to people rejecting methods because their personal definitions tell them to - although to be fair to Libertarians, they don't do that any more than anyone else.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
' was at war with '. D'oh, typo. And I can't fix it for five minutes yet or I hit the posting rate-limit. *shakes fist at sky* Curse you, Slashdot!
States can specify alternate legal tender, if and only if it is silver and gold coin.
Article 1, Section 10:
1: No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; .
Missing the point entirely. It's not an issue of being required to take cash or not, this law is a matter of being able to take cash or not. Businesses have always been able to reject cash for the purchase of goods and services (unless, as others have mentioned, the good or service is provided ahead of time on credit, thus creating a debt). Want to verify? Go to a gas station late at night with a jar of pennies and ask for a carton of smokes. Keep your eye on the attendant's middle finger.
The issue at hand is that this bill prohibits the use of cash in second-hand transactions. It requires all second-hand transactions to be completed via traceable means, and criminalizes the use of cash for second-hand transactions. This has all manner of negative implications, and if it stands the inevitable SCOTUS challenge, we should all be very worried.
Also, let's jog right past this "catching thieves" bullshit and get right down to what this is really about: unreported income and sales tax collection. You're not going to suddenly see an increase in the amount of recovered stolen property. You're going to see a massive increase in the number of visits from the IRS as well as state and local tax agencies, wanting to know why they didn't receive their protection money from the sale of that nice Persian rug you inherited, or the sales tax you "owe" them for hawking those rare NES games on eBay.
Actually, nobody forbids the seller from doing a very lousy job on checking and writing down the details of the debtor. Yes, you have to turn in the record. No, it doesn't have to contain anything useful other than the amount and unreadable signatures.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
As I mentioned above, the first problem is that there's no good definition of Libertarianism.
I'd also argue a point I've made a few times, which is that society is better off with a functional balance between factions. In this case, the faction known as the Federal Government has a mandate to operate a pan-US currency. In order for this to be functional, no other faction can be permitted to conflict with that mandate. Add to it, perhaps - essentially credit cards go beyond physical currency - but not block it.
In this particular case, I don't see this as being an attempt to usurp power, I see it as an attempt to usurp voters. Louisiana gets to complain about the "big bad awful" Federal Government suppressing its laws -- unless it backfires, in which case those backing the politicians can complain about the "big bad awful" State Government suppressing its laws.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What are you talking about? They certainly do have such a monopoly; it's called the US Mint.
Now the whole Federal Reserve thing is a whole separate issue, but the US Government has had a monopoly on minting coins and currency for a long time.
Still doable as a credit in opposite direction, as a pawn-in. Say, it is a 1-day no-percentage lease, guaranteed by the following goods, which become the property of the creditor upon failure of payment of the debt in time. You aren't selling goods, you are taking a credit, leave the goods in deposit, then lose the goods for failure to pay.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
If you're suddenly increasing the number of card-based transactions - won't that be a nice windfall for banks/transactions processing businesses that collect every time a transaction is run over their service? beyond the 'Big Brother' implications of this move, is there a profit motive?
Actually - but this is only semantics - the only way a transaction does not involve "debt" is if the parties involved agree to it before hand and exchange goods for goods, or goods for services, without having a currency ever involved.
Interestingly, about every currency nowadays is a debt, an IOU by the government to the central bank. More interestingly, this is a debt without cover. Government has no income or property to ever pay this debt, other than taking another loan. (federal gold reserve is a tiny drop nowhere near the value of the debt).
So, what you do when you receive $100 note for a used Stereo? You lost a tangible item and in exchange received a document that means the bearer is owed a credit to be paid in undefinded time by nonexistent means by entity you can in no way force to pay the credit. You can only pass it on to someone else in exchange for your debts. Feels funny to realize how volatile and unreliable a treasure cash is...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
verbal contract anyone? Or just for fun, let's consider implied-in-fact contracts... "I promise to pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
That deal can go SO wrong, as Wimpy found out on Robot Chicken:
http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/id-gladly-pay-you-tuesday.html
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
This blog entry suggests either "swap meet" or "tailgate sale" as the nearest U.S. equivalents; but neither term is used as often here, since yard sales and garage sales are more common.
I predict a large number of cash transactions occurring 10 feet outside of the state of Tennessee.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
The federal courts tend to take a dim view
Dim, Louisiana - two peas in a pod.
...just to play devil's advocate. Law enforcement may gain tremendous more power to gather information after a crime has been commit. I believe that law enforcement (when they are the good guys) being able to catch the bad guys is basically a good thing. Not that I'm in favor of everyone losing their privacy, giving law enforcement more power over people who have not commit any crimes, but I do see the up-side, transfer of guns and whatnot.
Also having lived in Louisiana, and gotten a sense of how corrupt it is, I'm wondering if this will have any ability to reduce corruption. I doubt it. I think people who want to circumvent enforcement (getting untraceable guns, etc) will find ways to do so despite this legislation.
However what's most interesting about this is it yet again proves William Gibson's ability to predict the future with fiction. It's been a while, but I think Gibson's idea was that in the future cash will be primarily used for illegal transaction (and law's like this assure that cash transactions are illegal). However, our political climate is one that no longer respects privacy. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that LA may have started a trend.
...but neither term is used as often here, since yard sales and garage sales are more common.
Meh. There's a thriving swap meet twice a week where I live.
Or a check made out to cash.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
But this law does not circumvent federal currency. US Dollars are still the standard. All that is changing is the means of delivering those dollars. Delivering US Dollars electronically is acceptable. It is the hard copies that are being rejected.
Just because a law is passed, doesn't necessarily make it lawful and legal. Unfortunately for this law, its probably a test for where the federal laws are going concerning tender, public and private. "Push it through down there and let everyone vent whose going to vent and we'll know better where we can go with this.."
The difference is whether you do proper due diligence to create a debt, and whether your standard terms include interest, and identification, and all the other stuff you do before a loan is issued. You do that if you issue a legitimate IOU. If you are issuing IOUs to Mickey Mouse, 123 Main St, which you pay immediately in cash, they'll nail you for conspiracy to violate the law in question, and once they prove that they'll nail you on the underlying offense.
Louisiana is probably evolved from Napoleonic law since Louisiana was purchased from France.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Unless you can produce those verbal contract terms, they're going to nail you for conspiracy to violate the law at issue here.
There is no such thing as a verbal contract.
So when Apple refuses to accept cash for an iPhone, they are breaking the law? When a movie theater refuses to accept $100 bills, they are breaking the law? When a gas station refuses to accept $45 in pennies, they are breaking the law? And when I take a chocolate bar from a store, I'm not stealing it? I'm just incurring a debt and then missing my payment deadline. So, that's a civil matter, not criminal, and I guess all lawyers defending people for shoplifting are just awful for not bringing that point up.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Until they prosecute you for conspiracy to violate the underlying law. If it's big enough, the local US Attorney might even make a RICO case out of you.
If you don't do due diligence on the loan, the courts aren't going to treat them as legitimate loans. You'll still be guilty.
A state has the right to strike alternative legal tender, per Article 1, Section 10. They don't have the enumerated right to require it. Much like an employer asking your favorite sexual position, they can try. Thus, someone will soon see the state of LA in court, I suspect.
Luke, help me take this mask off
eBay had no problem sidestepping cash over their paypal system. They still leave payment agreements up to the two parties however, last check, just can't advertise that you take cash. Picture enforcement of this law.. "Hey, you want to buy some calculators?"
"Yeah.."
"You got cash?"
"Yeah.."
"You-are-under-arrest."
"Oh, Man, I've got 5 kids.."
"Spread 'em, math man."
>:-D
That's the custom for services and for food and drink, but hard goods nearly always involve payment before you're allowed to take legal possession. And the sales terms can be whatever the shop owner wants them to be.
The store owner is free to reject any of those methods of payment, however. Just like they're free to reject cash.
You're confused. The reason you can drink a soda or munch a snack that you're going to pay for, is because you haven't hit the point where they can meet the legal requirements for convicting you of theft. As long as you're on the property they can't prove that you're going to steal the items in question.
It's not because they're extending you credit, it's because it would be difficult to get that case prosecuted. That is until you go beyond the cash registers at which point they could arrest you for theft.
As for services, that's completely different, you can't exchange those simultaneously so either you have to pay up front or you have to extend a sort of credit, neither of which applies in situations like that. And quite frankly, it's somewhat astonishing to me how far you're willing to go to create a loan situation which clearly doesn't exist.
Coins are not legal tender
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Er, are you on crack? You just argued that every price-labeled item in a store is an obligation to accept cash. It's not.
You don't grasp the idea of "terms of sale", do you?
I promise to pay you for this item in 10 s time.
Dont make it harder then it is.
Just saying it like it are.
Because you seemed to be asserting that the "normal" mode of acquiring goods implied paying for them before you took legal possession of them.
Fact is, the most common modes of acquiring goods in use today in the USA have you carrying the goods (whatever they are) home before the person selling them to you has your money in hand.
Obvious exceptions are drug deals, of course, and similar criminal activities.
But most of us, most of the time, are taking things home from stores before the stores have the money.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Or if they simply object on principle. I don't want any of my transactions traced. Precisely none of my transactions are illegal or even interesting. I simply think it's not the business of my government to be snooping around law abiding citizens on the off chance that they'll do something wrong. Until the probable cause threshold is met, I expect to be left strictly alone. Everyone should expect that.
Anyone else want to join these Louisiana Republican lawmakers in "getting the government off our backs"?
--
make install -not war
Except that the law defines a debt as an something that is owed and must be paid. When I ask for a ticket to a movie and the clerk says "$10 please" that is not a debt because I don't HAVE to pay it, I can back out of the transaction at no cost. When I buy a prepay card for my cellphone, that's not a debt because I can say "Actually, never mind!" When I get a cellphone bill for my not-prepay cell, that is a debt because I the service was rendered, I must pay it. If I rent an apartment, the damage deposit is not a debt because I can always say "Actually I live in a van down by the river". But the rent is a debt because without my legal notice (this obviously depends on state rental law) I can't just say "Not paying this month, bye". If I line up all night, get an iPhone 4S, and go to pay, that's not a debt even though I'm already holding the phone in my hand. But if I rage at being told I can't pay cash, and smash up a window, and they send me a bill, that is a debt because I can't just say "Just kidding, the window is fine!" You can play stupid word games all you want, talking about how technically you are taking a 5 second loan out, but it's bullshit. It's just like drug dealers who say "I'm just selling bags, whatever is inside is just filler"
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I'd look at the US Constitution for this one. Louisiana is violating at least two parts. First, the state is interfering with interstate commerce. Federal law on the use of currency supersedes state law (and while I'm not sure that there is a violation here, it is likely IMHO). Finally, the state doesn't have the authority to decide what is done with federal property such as US currency.
I find it disturbing that you and others start spouting your unfounded claims with legal disclaimer so anyone doesn't try to stand on your words, and not a single example of Bill or Note is given and neither any ritual of debt or a hint of laded Negotiable Instruments law.
People like you made your own bed and now you lie about it with flacid firmness.
Why don't you go vote against those of us that excelled at not making the unwise investments that you and others advocated to enter like Autopilot Advocacy.
I would not like to accept checks for anything. On the other hand the public would benefit tremendously if all financial dealings were completely visible and recorded. For example the dead beat who doesn't pay child support might have trouble before a judge if it could be shown that he spends large sums in strip clubs every pay day. A lot of politicians would be in prison and life would get a lot better. The truth will set us free and secrecy is the opposite of truth.
Of Apple, my thoughts aren't printable.
When a theatre or gas station refuses big bills, it means you can still pay in smaller bills.
If you steal, that's criminal, but can also be civil so as to recover it if you eat the bar. I'm sure they don't want it after it goes through your digestive system.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You're "Loyal" alright. And who's in whose pockets is clear to all.
Doesn't change the fact that the FED is neither federal nor a reserve.
...how about it says right on the bill itself "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". Top-left corner of every bill printed in the United States of America. NOW, if they want to make a law that says you have to keep a record of every transaction, public and private, that's a different story, BUT YOU CANNOT REFUSE CASH FOR PAYMENT OF ANY DEBT!!! Pittsburgh bars are practicing this illegal maneuver as well and need to be hammered by the courts for it, as well. Someone just needs to take this to the courts...won't take long for it to be deemed unconstitutional.
I once tried putting boots on my car. Turned out that tyres really worked much better.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Those Freedom loving "let's get the gov't off of people's backs". All I see is a police state.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Why does an IOU need names or what it was for?
Just an amount, maybe a date and something like "Holder is owed $x which is due by 'next day' from Joe Buyer. IOU must be returned to Joe Buyer upon payment in full."
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Congress has oversight of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
Really? Because congress can no longer even get numbers about how much money is in circulation, how much has been printed and how much has been loaned out.
There's a reason why they had to threaten to pass a bill to audit the fed before they found out anything at all.
Also, I would like you to answer, who owns the fed? who is on the board of governers? How many appointments has each president made and who were they and on what basis have they been appointed and were they approved by congress?
Furthermore, do you think there's a conflict of interest between the people controlling the fed and their other occupations and family ties? Do you think they wield too much power?
By the way the answer to the last 2 questions is yes.
Liberty.
It's a promise to accept a tender once offered. Cash is just one possible tender. I should have probably said that "cash is ***a*** legal tender."
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Basically, the whole point of this law is to get people to write down what they sold and to whom and for how much. They want to be able to trace an item through various networks.
Say, for example, I purchase a Playstation 3 from you. When I give you cash for it, you have to keep track of who you sold it to and for how much. Then whenever the guy that sold it to you gets busted for breaking and entering, they can get the Playstation 3 from me, arrest me for buying stolen property, then arrest you for buying/selling stolen property, and arrest the original guy for stealing the property. So, all in all, three people in jail over one stolen Playstation 3.
Most likely me and you wouldn't be jailed, but we would be slapped with a fine. That fine is the nature of the beast. They'll fine as many people as it goes through. So every item would, in their mind, be a gold mine of fines. Even if it weren't stolen in the first place, if you didn't keep records, you get fined. Then they'll move on to the next node..
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
This is silly. Markets exist due to buyers existing , if no one will buy with anything but cash and refuse to purchase with plastic
the market will see this as damage and route around. Oh you won't take cash ok, bye.
Let me rephrase that: Ummm no siree I only want a traceable check or credit card and no cash for this used item , no siree. no cash.
cash is king to sellers . period. Drive more transactions underground and untaxed.
no fscking law from any state is gonna change that.
If you live in a nation with property rights derived from English common law (like the US) then you've taken legal possession when you legally take physical possession. If you picked the candle up off the shelf and did so with the intent of meeting the implied and/or written contract terms offered by the store then you already have legal possession.
If you put it down, you've returned possession back to the shop. If you can't pay or the store otherwise cancels the transaction BEFORE you've paid your debt, they can reclaim possession.
The only common exception is items kept behind the counter. But even there they will generally give you the item and then ask for the money.
"It's not because they're extending you credit, it's because it would be difficult to get that case prosecuted."
It's not me who is confused. The reason it would be difficult to prosecute me is that if I've reached a meeting of minds with the store, by agreeing to the implied and written terms they've offered then I am already LEGALLY in possession of the drink and snack and entitled to do with them as I please. The moment we have an agreement and I take physical possession then I also have legal possession. If I leave without paying MY DEBT for those items it demonstrates that I never intended to pay and therefore there was no meetings of minds, no agreement, and therefore when I took possession of the goods it was theft.
It's also generally out of the store and not beyond the cash registers. In fact, even if you were openly stealing you can sue the store if they injured you while attempting to detain you.
I was just pondering sales tax on fast food today, as I was munching my "burger combo meal". In my state, CA, they don't charge sales tax on food, but they do charge for "prepared food".
CA also, does not (yet) charge sales tax on services, so, for example, when you go to a car mechanic, you might get a bill with separate "parts" and "labor" lines, with only the parts being taxed.
So, I was wondering if the burger joint could have a completely sales tax free menu, simply by itemizing the receipt into unprepared food (parts), and service (labor)...
Then I decided, one could probably have a tax-free AND health inspector free "non-restaurant" where folks bring their own food for you to prepare for them, for a "service" fee only.
I never understood by laws aren't written in with a plain English section that specifies the "intent", to be used as guidance by lawers and judges later. I mean why would they have to "interpret the meaning of a law" if the damn thing just said what was meant in the first place.
Bringing it back on topic, why doesn't Louisiana just pass a law that you can't sell "X" without keeping records, taking ID's etc?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Why does an IOU need names or what it was for?
How would you enforce it if it didn't? What proof is there that I owe you anything if I never signed anything?
No, you defeat one of the points of using cash. One of cash's advantages is that it's anonymous, but another advantage it has, is that you're not paying a "tax" on every transaction to a bank, like you do with, say, plastic money.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Why would the government separate branches? Yeah.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
To quote my $20 - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
In a technical sense, accepting goods places a burden of debt upon the recipient.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
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.
If you were extended credit for your items/service, they couldn't arrest you for walking out. They would have to file a lawsuit, and/or go through collections, and they could report your non payment to the credit bureaus. That obviously isn't the case. You are changed with stealing -- you don't own the item yet.
I'm not sure if the store owner is free to reject cash. On what basis? They better have a good reason, like I was disturbing the peace in the store. If store owners had the right to reject cash for their payments, then they could disallow all Japanese from buying things from their store, and I think they'd be in a pickle if they did something like that.
Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
Good morning. Or should I say wakey wakey ?
A similar law has been in operation in Europe for years to fight dirty money.
No purchase of above €10.000 (roughly $14.000) can be made in cash any longer to prevent money laundering.
Would thrift stores no longer be able to accept cash or is this only for non brick and mortar transactions. What about Gamestop, would I no longer be able to buy used games with cash?
Race is a legally protected category from discrimination.
Form of payment isn't.
In a technical sense, accepting goods places a burden of debt upon the recipient.
No it doesn't. If I hand you a widget you do not owe me money. If you take a widget from my store without paying for it you still do not owe me money. (You have committed theft though, which may allow me to file suit against you for restitution.) You only owe money when you agree to owe money.
Jesus Christ, what isn't in the patriot act? I was gonna have a Klondike bar for breakfast but now I'm worried the DEA is gonna break my door down.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Wow. You have really impressed me with your in depth research on this topic as well as the care you took to cite all your sources.
What's more concerning is that they claim that this is to make life easier for law enforcement.
Let's face it... if there are things we can do to make life easier for law enforcement, I'm all for it. In fact, I'll chip in to build another dunkin' donuts or two to shorten their commutes to and from crime scenes. However I don't recall that there are any reasonable provisions in the constitution that suggests that making life easier for law enforcement at the person expense of those they are meant to protect is justification for passing new laws.
Sounds like the state of Louisiana is devaluing American currency by limiting its usefulness. Brilliant.
If you take a basket of groceries to the checkout, there's no debt there...
So sell all your goods on a contract that looks like this:
We will provide goods to you on credit on the condition that they remain in our posession as long as the debt is outstanding. We may cancel the credit and reclaim goods in our possession if you leave our store.
That way, the transaction technically isn't a purchase by cash, but a purchase by credit which is settled in cash immediately afterwards.
For there to be a debt when you buy your groceries, those groceries would have to pass into your legal possession voluntarily and by agreement from both parties, prior to payment being made.
Which isn't what happens. Those groceries remain the property of Walmart until you have successfully paid for them.
Sorry, but "debt" doesn't occur in normal shop transactions.
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.
Lobbied for by the financial "services" industry?
Sure, the person owing the money has their name on the IOU, but you don't need the name of the person receiving the money on it. And the person receiving the money gives up the IOU upon receipt of the cash. And why would you then NOT destroy the IOU?
So, at BEST, there is a temporary record that you have given $X to somebody. No date, no purpose, no location. And your not obliged to keep this IOU for your records [in fact, it would make sense to destroy it, otherwise somebody else could find it and use it to get you to pay again...].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Read the text of the law. The only mentions of "cash" merely call for the reporting of cash transactions. From the law's summary: "Proposed law requires all payments of cash in excess of $25 given in exchange for junk or used or secondhand property to be reported separately in the daily reports required by proposed law."
I don't know the exact text of the proposed law (it is behind a flash lock), but could this be the best incentive to switch to a local currency (LETS scheme)?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.
If you're not bartering straight across, then you are usually incurring a debt at the time of the transaction, and then repaying that debt shortly afterwords.
Example: If you have to pre-pay for your gasoline, then there is no debt incurred. If you only have a $100 bill, they can tell you "sorry, we won't accept that". But if you have already pumped your gas, then they have to accept your $100 as repayment for that debt. ***
Or in other words, they can choose not to do business with you, but once the service is rendered (such as food at a diner) you now owe a debt and legally they must accept any form of US currency which has ever been generally circulated at face value.
If you agree with your neighbor that you'll exchange a gallon of gas for a pack of beer, then it's a straight barter and no debt is incurred by either party.
*** Note that they do not have to immediately give you change, however- they may wait until the next business day to actually give you the change back. But they DO still have to accept that $100 bill as payment, or else forfeit their claim to the debt owed.
So California's bonds are illegal?
Yes, but by using debts you are required to record that information in the first place. If someone came up to you and asked who sold you that cat5 cable 6 months ago, the only record you would have (with the old system) would be when and for how much.
Haha, Canada is actually switching to plastic cash. Go figure.
Sure there is, think more conceptually.
This bag of groceries will make you indebted to us for $50, if you want to leave you need to resolve said debt.
by refusing cash, alot of people will be unable to buy. i know alot of people around my area who deal in junk, and none of them have credit cards, few have a bank account. and hows that going to deter theft? sounds to me that it would cause theft, cause you gotta pay for the gas to go outta state to sell your metal then. their driving every 'junker' outta business.
I disagree that accepting goods places a burden of debt. A debt needs a standard of deferred payment - and if the payment is not deferred, then it cannot be a debt. I would argue that the transaction whereby the goods and the payment change hands is instant and simultaneous - although the customer may be holding the goods before the retailer takes the payment, I believe that the retailer has a case that the goods do not yet belong to the customer.
It sounds to me like a perfectly logical and sensible attempt to create a paper trail for all second-hand transactions. As has been noted elsewhere, a quick IOU signed before the goods are handed over will keep everybody happy - a paper trail for the transaction, and the customer still gets to pay in cash.
You do realise that judges just love to punish such stupid "logical" end-run attempts around laws?
There is no debt, you can attempt to create one but just simply saying "there is a debt" doesn't make it so.
Your scenario is also something that a shop would never attempt - because failure to repay a debt is a civil matter, not one which you can detain someone for "shoplifting", so your "if you want to leave" is meaningless. So you have to take down names, addresses, details and make a formal agreement - and then take them to court. But the very act of taking down names etc is what this law is attempting to force you to do - make the transaction trackable.
The actual, full wording is here: http://la.opengovernment.org/system/bill_documents/001/244/500/original/streamdocument.asp?1310514265
Here is what this law applies to:
4 A.(1) Every person in this state engaged in the business of buying, selling,
5 trading in, or otherwise acquiring or disposing of junk or used or secondhand
6 property, including but not limited to jewelry, silverware, diamonds, precious metals,
7 ferrousmaterials, catalytic converters, auto hulks, copper, copperwire, copper alloy,
8 bronze, zinc, aluminum other than in the form of cans, stainless steel, nickel alloys,
9 or brass, whether in the form of bars, cable, ingots, rods, tubing, wire, wire scraps,
10 clamps or connectors, railroad track materials, water utility materials, furniture,
11 pictures, objects of art, clothing, mechanic's tools, carpenter's tools, automobile
12 hubcaps, automotive batteries, automotive sound equipment such as radios, CB
13 radios, stereos, speakers, cassettes, compact disc players, and similar automotive
14 audio supplies, used building components, and items defined as cemetery artifacts
15 is a secondhand dealer.
That's pretty broad, but I don't think this list generalizes to "everything you sell on Craigslist." I'm reading it as basically:
- Scrap materials
- Automotive parts
- Tools
- Jewelry
- Furniture
- Art
- Clothing
So since really big ticket stuff, like car, motorcycles, ATVs, home electronics, etc. aren't covered, maybe it's actually not a tax grab move.
It's still nuts though, because it actually does prohibit the use of cash and sets some pretty hefty fines and prison terms. And since it applies to art and clothing, it's a way bigger threat to actual struggling musicians than piracy ever will be.
Use Postage stamps instead of cash. Stamps are a printed paper token issued by the Government, just like cash.
Kinda like having "Bills of Sale" for private auto transaction. You know where you pay they guy whatever you actually agreed to in cash, and then he writes some lesser value on the receipt so you don't get hit with the taxes.
I imagine lots of handwritten sheets of paper with signatures scrawled on them, saying something like.
I agree to extend Mr.{Insert Name} a loan of {insert value} to purchase my heap of {insert type of scrap metal, or other good} at no interest. The loan shall be originated at {now()} and is to be paid in full by {dateadd("m",now(),5)}.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
In a restaurant where you pay at the end, you are in debt after eating. I cannot believe such a restaurant needs a licence to offer credit..? Similarly staying in a hotel etc.
Actually in most cases the buyer takes possession of the item first.
You haven't taken any sort of legal possession of the stuff in your shopping cart.
Hmm, maybe I should just stalk the checkout and take the cart that seems to have what I came to buy....
Interesting point. I had this happen at a McDonald's drive-through once. I happened to have a rather old $10 bill - before the anti-counterfeiting strips were included in them, and the McDonald's refused to take it, even after I pointed out that it was a $10 from 1974. They just gave me the food. (I returned that afternoon and spoke with the manager and tried to pay for the food again with a newer bill, but she refused payment and was surprised that I even came back.)
I'm posting AC because I don't feel like being flamed by people asking why I went back to pay after they gave me the food in the morning. I thought it was the right thing to do.
Wow, you did a good job copying from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] for the Federal Reserve
May I assume you have some reason for believing Wikipedia wrong in this instance? Of my six points, which are wrong? What evidence do you have that they are wrong? What's the source of that evidence?
but it is still a mostly privately owned and operated bank.
No, it's not. The decisions are made by government appointed bureaucrats. The goals (low inflation and high employment) where chosen by government. The vast majority of profit goes to government. It's a mostly governmental organization with some private aspects.
Also, the Congress can only oversee it. If it wanted, "it's decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government".
That's because the congress wanted to create a bureaucracy that would be relatively uninfluenced by political decisions. In particular, they didn't want whatever party was in power nine months before the election season starts to crash the economy if the "wrong" party was in power, or rev it up if the "right" one was. If congress wants to be able to ratify the FRS's decisions or give that power to the president then all they have to do is rewrite that portion of the Federal Reserve Act.
This is why all money is loaned at interest TO the government.
So why do they then turn around and give 94% of that interest back to the treasury? How about if we agree that the FRS is 6% private and 94% federal?
It is a private bank that is out to do EXACTLY what other private banks do: make money off it's customers.
Why should it make money off its customers if it must turn around and give it back to the treasury? And what can it do with the 6% that it gets to keep? It can't give itself raises. The government sets their salaries. It can't pay stockholders. The FRS has no stock. About the only thing they can do with that money is pay for nice desks and offices.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Anyone else think its funny that the state that's shaped like a boot is the one trying this?
Then you just say it was a gift exchange.
If businesses can use shady practices that adhere to the letter of the law while flaunting the spirit of it, so can citizens.
Question everything
Simpler than making an IOU: you make a minor change to the item, call it "art", and sell it as new.
That is why strictly speaking I am an anarchist, not just a libertarian. Most libertarians would be OK with a hypothetical government that could protect individual rights without violating those very same rights. I'm fairly convinced that no such institution could exist; if it is capable of protecting liberty then it is capable of destroying it as well. I would prefer that no institution had such power, and certainly no such institution will ever have my willing cooperation or support.
Nonaggression works!
This will only stop the accidental traffic of stolen property. The people who don't care if something is stolen will get MORE business. So they're essentially killing off the legitimate businesses and allowing only the illegal people who know they're illegal to get any money. This law allows the polar opposite of what they're trying to do. On top of that it institutes an unfair barrier to entry into the market. Someone is going to strike this law down with a vengeance and make laughing stocks out of its authors. This is the kind of thing I expect rich stupid politicians to try to do. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows this will accomplish the exact opposite of its intention.
I'm a generally identified Liberal, due to get-out-of-my-bedroom policies and belief that healthcare in this country is completely f*ed up. But if the bulk of the Republican party stuck to professed Republican ideals, I might actually be a Republican. When they had the opportunity to make a balanced budget during the Contract with America, they cut taxes on the rich without actually cutting programs. After 911 they got us into Iraq, grew the government massively, and started wiretapping everyone. They're the reason why whenever you go through an airport now, there is a 2 hour wait for a college dropout to shove their hand up your bum. And of course it's a slap in the face to callthe super-rich "job creators" (HP just spent 240 million dollars to FIRE 3 CEO's in 5 years), while claiming that the employed teachers in Ohio are "entitled children" "ruining the state."
When I speak to my Libertarian-leaning Republican friends, I have to tell them that I believe in their ideals but not in their people. And while the party keeps falling for candidates that are Bachtarded, there is little chance that the ideology will remain anything other than a name-check in a mad dash for power and money.
The ______ Agenda
Unless that state comes up with their own currency, they are out of luck. Give them a big finger and tell them to frack off.
You're "Loyal" alright.
To be complete, the name is Loyal Opposition. If you're unfamiliar with it, it often means the party in congress not currently in power. For example, in the Senate today the loyal opposition are the Republicans and in the House of Representatives they are the Democrats. I suppose the Independents are loyal opposition as well. It generally means people who are willing to tell you when they think you are wrong.
And who's in whose pockets is clear to all.
Well, not precisely all. For example, I don't know whose pockets you think I'm in. Would you be so kind as to tell me that? Also, tell me what I've said that makes you think so. And while you're at it you might say whether you think I'm in favour of The Federal Reserve System or opposed.
Doesn't change the fact that the FED is neither federal nor a reserve.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that I'm a shill for the Federal Reserve System, and therefore you can ignore any claim I make about it. On the one hand I'm astonished that anyone would think that a claim that The Federal Reserve System is federal is in any way a support of that system. On the other hand, I'm hugely indebted to you for a nearly pure example of the tu quoque fallacy. I've been searching for one for years, and until now I've never found one that was quite right.
Another surprise for me is your implication that I've ever claimed that The Federal Reserve System is a reserve. Would you point me to something I might have said to give you that opinion?
Finally, would you at least admit that The Federal Reserve System is a system? Or are you like Mary McCarthy, when speaking of Lilllian Hellman, when she said, "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the."
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
i can buy drugs on my charge card?
Well, I wonder if you can take a couple hundred in stamps into the Post Office and redeem them for cash...
Well, there is a reason they call it the "dormant" commerce clause.
"debts" are any kind of monetary obligation, not only loans. When you buy anything from anyone, you create an obligation to sell, and incur in a debt for the price of the object or service purchased.
There is no additional requirement whatsoever, no requirement of record, interest, promise, manifestation of will, nothing. that can all be implicit, and is the base of contemporary civil law.
"debts" basically mean "any monetary obligation" and that includes pretty much everything, so this whole thread is completely nonsensical.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
it is not.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
mod parent ignorant confused erroneous and full of shit.
everytime there is an obligation to pay, there is a debt. the "duration" of said obligation is irrelevant. when you pay the store, you are paying a debt.
A friend of mine is on probation, I was flabbergasted when i found out that the probation office only accepts money orders.
No cash!
If the govt itself wont accept cash as payment, what does that say about our currency?
Government has no income or property to ever pay this debt, other than taking another loan
They've got taxes, both present and future. They've got a shitload of federal land (full of valuable resources). Hell, the government could loan out it's services and expertise to other countries in return for payment.
This has to be the most ham-fisted law in human history.
Governor: "We want to stop scrap metal theft."
Adviser: "How about harsher penalties for scrap metal theft specifically, or putting some of the liability onto the scrap dealers?"
Governor: "No that's stupid. I know! Let's ban the use of cash for all second-hand goods transactions."
Adviser: "Did you ever think that there might be some people who make legitimate second-hand transactions?"
Governor: "Huh, good point, you finally said something smart for a change. I'll make an exception for once-a-month sellers to allow people to hold garage sales, and have an exception for that most reputable of businesses, the pawn shop. This looks good, send it along! And on the way back see if that campaign poster about how I support civil liberties is finished."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
But at the time you engage in a transaction you incur a debt. If you didn't, you wouldn't owe anything.
I am wondering who has actually read the law?
In my reading of the law as enacted, not original, I don't find anywhere the wholesale ban of using of cash. What it does restrict is that if you are running a junk store, a pawn shop that isn't licensed as one, you can't buy something from someone in cash. you are also required to record what you bought, from whom, how much was paid, and get a signature from the seller that they own it.
All that this law really does is make antique store, or anything else like them follow much the same rules that pawn shops have to follow. As for interstate commerce LA has full authority to regulate businesses operating in its boundaries in almost any way the legislator sees fit.
3. The FRS is run by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is run by the Board of Directors, who are selected by shareholders.
- The policy of the Federal Reserve to give members of the banking industry the power to both elect and serve on the Federal Reserve's board of directors creates "an appearance of a conflict of interest."
- The GAO identified 18 former and current members of the Federal Reserve's board affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis including General Electric, JP Morgan Chase, and Lehman Brothers.
The Sanders Report on the GAO Audit on Major Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Reserve (pdf)
Loan the shop money (cash). They pay you back with items that are worth the value of the cash you loaned them. Your loan should have an interest rate that is equal to sales tax.
Money LA would have gotten in sales tax is now funneled via your tax payment at the end of the year to the IRS. What ya gonna do about that, LA?
I certainly see where you're coming from and it is an exceptionally difficult problem. I've been busting my brains out trying to figure out what sort of dynamic would be needed in order to have protection for individual rights with little or no risk of that same structure destroying those rights. Asymmetrical functions exist, but absent Asimov's Psychohistory it is extremely hard to see how these can be applied in a social or political context.
I've the skeleton of a theory, but I haven't the skills to know if that skeleton holds up to inspection or - even if it did - whether there is any way to flesh it out into something practical. The odds are definitely against me, since if it were that easy to come up with a stable system, people would have done so years ago.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If store owners had the right to reject cash for their payments, then they could disallow all Japanese from buying things from their store
No. That would be discrimination against Japanese, not cash. Discrimination against race is illegal. Discrimination against cash isn't.
But most of us, most of the time, are taking things home from stores before the stores have the money.
Any debt created in a transaction with credit and debit cards isn't between the buyer and the seller.
Cheques are a special case but hardly the usual one. Most places don't take cheques because of the risk. In any case, it hardly undermines my point that a typical store transaction is settled between the buyer and seller immediately ... except when the buyer writes the seller a promissary note.. :rollseyes:
This isn't about requiring people to take cash, it's about forbidding them from taking cash.
A sale is a contract, an agreement between two parties, where party A agrees to give something to B and vice versa. The very moment A and B come to that mutual agreement, A is owing B the agreed-upon item and B is owing a the agreed-upon remuneration. A hands the item over to B, who is then in debt to pay money.
Every sales contract begins with mutual debt and usually the item being handed over first and then the money. Thus, all money used for any sale is used to pay back debt, even if that debt only existed for a fraction of a second between taking the item and paying for it.
So:
1) Whenever money is changing hands, it is always either a gift or used for clearing debt.
Louisiana now seems to think it's possible to circumvent this basic act of mutual agreement by forcing A and B to always include a third party C who has to clear the monetary transaction for them. This is blatantly unconstitutional, since C - probably a credit card company - will always take a fee for it, increasing the price between A and B by a tax imposed by a private corporation. Regulating the sale of perfectly-legal items between perfectly-legal consenting adults is not only horribly un-American, it is also completely useless. Buyers and sellers will just switch to a different currency or different contracts, e.g. tiny specks of Gold or mutual gifting. Also regulating mutual gifting would not only also be un-American, but utterly inane.
When direct monetary exchange is prohibited, but A and B don't want a paper trail, they will
a) agree to a third party C* of *their* choice, preferring a C* that is leaving no paper trail.
b) give mutually agreed-upon "gifts" to each other that are timed appropriately. A gifts B an item, B gifts A some money.
c) agree to exchange the item for a different second item, with item no.2 being a nameless coupon or a valuable, countable, divisible, stable commodity, eg. Gold
If a) or b) or c) are allowed, this law will fizzle.
If a) and b) and c) are all prohibited, you could just as well draw a Red Hammer And Sickle on Dollar notes and the White House and be done with it.
Uhm... I'm not the brightest person in the world but it seems to me that it would be hard to track; and thus prosecute, under-the-table cash transactions.
Would love to hear any lawyers chime in on this topic.
P.S. If any lawyers/accountants are out there. Does prostitution fall under used goods? Just asking.
"example of the tu quoque fallacy"
Happy to oblige, and that incluses the word "the" yes ;-)
Pick up a new flat panel TV and begin to walk out the door
without paying.
A polite establishment would say: "Excuse me sir (or madam)
you forgot to pay for your TV. i.e. you have forgotten
to discharge your debt. Ask the Venice store of Kamofie & Co
with regard to Lindsay Lohan. And yes, a swarmy store would wait
a week and call the "Boys in Blue" collection and advertisement
agency.
As folk that write transaction systems the semantics and interlocks
mater or value escapes the system. The teller rings up the product
places it in a bag and now you close out the debt one way or another
to be permitted to take the product home. The debt can be exchanged
for debt with MasterCard or Visa or discharged promptly with currency.
I am curious what second hand transactions are. At what stage
are diamonds second hand? At what stage is gold (Pandas, Maple Leaf,
Krugerrand) second hand?
Then there is the privacy issue. If all transactions are tracked what
and who can trigger a financial audit. What additional financial burden is
being placed on banks and businesses large and small. Does a
shoe box of Post-it notes comply. Golly knows that a missing Post-it
note can get you tossed in the slammer (ask Martha). What information
must be on the paperwork. i.e. Sold "Lot 22, odds and ends" $12.50.
Sold: "Jar of old buttons" $1200.00. Sold painting see Antique Road Show
episode November 22, 2011, "man on a strange horse found in the dustbin". $50,000.00
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
If you have to keep an administration of the IOUs there will still be a paper trail..
Privacy is terrorism.
I doubt both the value of the land and value of the services exceeds the national debt, and taxes mean in essence the government cancels a piece of the debt to you - it's not like they extract any actual value, just decide "We owed you X, now we owe you 5% less" which is expresed by you paying 5% of what you own as tax.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
While I'm sure most of us understand what they mean by "second hand" items, I think they would need to clarify that further. Wouldn't most goods purchased at any store be considered second hand? I mean the store had to buy from a distributor, who either made the goods themselves or purchased from the manufacturer (assuming the store itself didn't make the goods). So for examp, even if you buy a "new" tv from say bestbuy, they had to purchase it from some company to add to their item stock. That means you may be the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or more person to buy that item, even if it is "new".
And what about stores that take item returns and restock them? That just adds "used" to the mix, even if they do repackage it.... bleh I give up. I think most of our politicians ate lead paint growing up.
If stolen property is found, it is confiscated and eventually given back to the rightful parties. If the dealer is knowingly buying your stolen property, he's an idiot since it can potentially be repossessed without any compensation back to the dealer.
Swap meet or flea market, actual car boot sales are less frequent in the US, and people doing such often use other means than having 100 vendors show up in a parking lot, park in rows, and lay out the contents of their car boot for others to look at.
Learn to love Alaska
You must know different Libertarians than I do. The Libertarians where I live (Texas, then Alaska) still complain about the USPS and such (when defined explicitly in the Constitution) and most of them are against abortion and gay marriage (stating that the government should not be involved in any marriage, so they are against any "gay marriage" laws, but are most certainly not working to repeal breeder marriage laws, so they are, by action and inaction, actively against gay marriage). Whether that's the national stance, I couldn't say, but the conservatives that gravitate to the Libertarian Party are not "libertarians" in the political sense (and by US libertarians, I have to presume you meant those in the US who self-identify as such, rather than the dictionary definition, which is consistent worldwide, but excludes most of the US libertarians)
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, those aren't real libertarians, they're Tea Partiers (teabaggers). Actually, being against the USPS isn't inconsistent with libertarianism, since they want as little government as possible; they'll probably say it's no longer needed like it was in the 1700s because of the internet, etc., but they're still overlooking why the FFs wanted the USPS under Federal government ownership, which was that inexpensive communications are necessary for a democracy, and you can't trust corporations to provide anything reliably and at low cost. They also consistently overlook the fact that the FFs did NOT like corporations, and were very suspicious of them, but today's "libertarians" and TPers are big fans of big corporations.
Being against marriage laws is entirely consistent with libertarianism, and that's one facet of libertarianism I agree with: I think all marriage laws should be repealed, and it shouldn't be recognized by government at all. Instead, it should be replaced with standard contract law, so that any two people (or more, if they want) can enter into a contract setting out what items they share, what the terms are, what happens when the contract is broken, etc. Instead of being standardized state-by-state (so that if you live in a "community property" state like CA, you get screwed if your wife cheats on you and decides to take half your stuff), couples (or threesomes, or whatever) can decide for themselves exactly what terms they want for their marriage contract. Of course, there'd be a number of "standard contracts" that most people would just default to, or perhaps use with slight modifications, but this is fine. Of course, the religious nuts will probably say some BS about animals or whatever, but contract law is contract law: only consenting adults are allowed to legally enter into a contract, so this would of course restrict marriage to legal adults (18+), which is as it should be (no, 16-year-olds should not be allowed to get married; allowing someone to get married, but then saying they're not an adult and can't make their own decisions, is completely contradictory, and parents should never be allowed to force their children (or allow their children with their consent) to enter into a legal contract).
Being against marriage laws is entirely consistent with libertarianism, and that's one facet of libertarianism I agree with: I think all marriage laws should be repealed, and it shouldn't be recognized by government at all.
I agree 100%, however, anyone who holds that opinion who actively works to block gay marriage laws, but doesn't work to repeal breeder marriage laws, is anti-gay in a manner inconsistent with libertarian (note the lower case "L" ideals). Libertarians in the US are not libertarian, but instead are conservatives who don't like borrow and spend economics. Teabaggers are happy to force their morality on others and don't want a small government either. Even the libertarians have the same issue. They want the government small enough to pay just for what they want, and no more. That doesn't make them "small government". But their large government is smaller than the others, so they sell it as wanting "small" government. They still want a standing military (of varying sizes, depending on who you ask), and private police (while trying to sell off/outsource everything else, why not hire private companies for the police force?), as well as immigration policies that are far from libertarian, but instead conservative.
Learn to love Alaska
The problem is that if you have a store and someone shoplifts, it's a criminal matter. If you sell everything on terms, then anyone could walk out and not pay, and you'd have to sue them, as they no longer stole from you or broke any law at all (presuming they didn't commit fraud). So legal protections are reduced when you swap to a "lend with instant payoff" system. The moment the "lend" is in effect, they are free to walk away in default, with the item, and not break any criminal law in doing so.
Learn to love Alaska
Feels funny to realize how volatile and unreliable a treasure cash is...
Even as gold-backed notes, it was the same. It was backed by the word of the government and nothing else. If you showed up wanting you gold or whatever, you'd only get it if they let you. Feels funny to realize how unreliable gold-backed cash is...
Even coin printed on gold. Gold only has value because people agree to that, same as fiat currency. If people decided they didn't want gold anymore (the practical applications are limited because the value is too high to generate as much solid demand as, say, copper, then the value would drop. Does it feel funny to realize how volatile and unreliable gold is?
Every currency method has benefits and drawbacks. Fiat currency is the "best" (as determined by economists much smarter than you), and used everywhere. And remarkably stable, for being nothing other that paper IOU notes. But your comments are all non sequitur, as it's not a question of a debt implied in the note, but whether a sale at a store is a debt, and if it is, then LA is violating the Constitution.
Learn to love Alaska
You, sir, are an ignorant asshat. Your claim of copypasta from the wiki article is specious, as are your arguments.
Please do not feed the trolls, it only makes you angry.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I have family in New Orleans. They have horror stories about the pervasive, persistent abuses of power by the police and the gatekeepers of government.
For example, during the preparations for hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department went house to house stealing and in some cases destroying residents' firearms.
At times it seems to me that there is more in common between Louisiana and Haiti than between Louisiana and the United States. If it wasn't for the fact that New Orleans is the export point for all bulk goods from the Mississippi River and Ohio River basins, and where the Mississippi and the Intercoastal Waterway meet, it would be far more trouble than it is worth. But then, that positioning is exactly why Louisiana gets away with what it does.
Louisiana doesn't have counties, it has parishes. It doesn't have laws, it has codes. Louisiana pretty much makes up its own rules for everything. Get used to it, or move elsewhere.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.