1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15910/how-about-that-utah/

How About that Utah!

March 5, 2011 by

The state has voted to make gold and silver legal tender, not just at stamp price but at the market price. This could get interesting.

{ 15 comments }

Michael Richards March 5, 2011 at 5:02 pm

woot

Barry bell March 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm

I read this last night and was a little encouraged. The article said “US minted coins” I think here is the link
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/04/utah-house-passes-recognizing-gold-silver-legal-tender/

Michael Richards March 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm

Wow Utah is playing it smart. Its going to be nice to see Mises’ and Rothbard’s theories put into action.

Matt March 5, 2011 at 6:44 pm

Wow. Could be a nullification test? Can’t imagine the federal government will be happy about this.
On the other hand, could be time to move to Utah?

Stefano March 5, 2011 at 6:48 pm

I am all for this, but isn’t it contrary to Article 1 section ten?

Or does that only grant a Federal monopoly on minting currency?

Again, I am all for it, I am just wondering what kind of legal challenges such a bill would present.

J. Murray March 5, 2011 at 9:12 pm

It’s not. This is the actual text:

“No state shall…make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;”

It says that the only money that states can create are gold and silver coins.

You’re probably thinking Article 1 Section 8 and this clause:

“To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;”

Which, again, is not in violation because value doesn’t mean what it trades for but what the coin is physically made up of. The definition of Dollar is a hard-set weight of pure silver, which Congress can then say what the alloy must be made up of. Congress can’t alter the weight of pure silver present in the alloy nor can Congress dictate what that coin will trade for.

What this means is that all Congress can do is say that the 371.25 grains of pure silver that make up the definition of a Dollar (that number is to Dollar as 12 is to Dozen. You can’t just redefine a unit of measurement like what is being passed off as a Dollar today is) must be present in a coin and given other metals to alloy with it, so when someone accepts a coin with $1 on it, they know it contains 371.25 grains of pure silver no matter what bank or state issued the coin. It makes it so money can cross state lines and be privately issued, severing political control over coins. See http://mises.org/daily/4149 for more details.

What is passed off as currency today is actually Unconstitutional as the Constitution does not give Congress power to issue paper scrip as coining currency specifically relates to metals, not paper. Congress also was never granted power to give a single entity monopoly control over currency, meaning the Federal Reserve Bank is also Unconstitutional on top of issuing unbacked paper currency. Further, even if the Federal Government does decide to issue copper, nickel, or iron coinage, it cannot use the term Dollar because, as noted above, Dollar is a very specific term for a specific weight of pure silver. Since Congress was given no power to price-fix, attempting to call copper, nickel, steel, brass, or even gold $1 would also violate the granted powers of the Federal government. Yes, I said it, gold CANNOT be defined as $1 under any circumstance as the purchase price of gold in terms of silver is never constant. It may be used as currency, but the coin must be stamped with it’s weight. So a penny cannot be stamped as 1 cent because 1 cent is 3.7125 grains of silver, not 2.4375 grams zinc and 0.0625 grams copper. All that coin can be stamped with is 2.4375 grams zinc and 0.0625 grams copper to denote what it is made of. Uncle Sam is breaking the rules by using Federal Reserve Notes and forcing us to use it (no Constitutional Articles give government of any level power to force people to use chosen money).

Braden Talbot March 5, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Wow. I haven’t read the article and I am excited.

I am from Utah. Legal tender is idiotic, but gold and silver?

Tyrone Dell March 5, 2011 at 9:45 pm

Relax guys, it still has to pass in the Senate.

jl March 6, 2011 at 8:55 am

Love how Rep. Eliason, a CPA, complains that this bill, giving people a little more freedom, is bad. People might “abuse” the law to get a little more tax freedom. Which isn’t the kind of freedom we should be allowed.

Bruce Koerber March 6, 2011 at 9:39 am

Federated Subsidiarities Instead of Statism!!!

Federated subsidiarities is the natural (minus ego-driven intervention) order. Let’s hope this process accelerates to provide a counterbalance to the inevitable disintegration of Statism and to counteract the violent response of the State against humanity.

jmorris84 March 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm

It’s really sad to see the excitement being shown in Mr. Tucker’s post and the comments made by everyone else in regards to this bill. Legislation is legislation, any way you slice it, which means value systems of one group of people are going to be forced on another group. Do I think that people should be allowed to recognize gold and silver as a medium of exchange? Absolutely. Does a bill need to be passed in order for that to happen? Absolutely not. This is just another addition to the government waste pile.

Rick March 6, 2011 at 9:43 pm

I hear what you’re saying. However, the fact some state politicians actually have an open mind about this is a step in the right direction. Also, the article say’s the bill doesn’t require people to accept gold or silver as payment so I don’t see how anyone is being forced into anything.

Do I think that people should be allowed to recognize gold and silver as a medium of exchange? Absolutely. Does a bill need to be passed in order for that to happen? Absolutely not.

Gold and silver should be a medium of exchange and theoretically in a libertarian world a bill wouldn’t be needed for it. That said, we don’t live in that world and the U.S. has strict legal tender laws that are aggressively enforced. So from a practical perspective given current realities, yes, bills do have to be passed.

Again, I understand where you’re coming from but I do think this is a good step forward even if it doesn’t become state law.

J. Murray March 7, 2011 at 7:25 am

Yes, a bill does need to be passed. Legislation is required to repeal other legislation. They don’t just go away on their own.

Alpheus March 21, 2011 at 9:40 am

I would also go further: such a bill would help soften the idea of gold and silver as currency in the minds of those who accept State decrees.

I have imagined trying to convince local businesses to accept gold and silver for trading–but do you know what that would take? It would take special cash registers (even if just one or two, at first) to accept gold and silver, and it would also take customers willing to pay with gold and silver. We have a chicken-and-egg problem.

With a bit of legislation, however, it could open up the minds of everyone that there *is* an alternative to this stupid fiat “money” we are currently using! And that’s a good thing .

Cracker March 7, 2011 at 10:23 am

I’m not sure if this law will mean anything at all. They say you will be able to pay your state taxes in gold or silver. Who in their right mind would do that? I’ll gladly pay my taxes in fiat, but will be storing my wealth in precious metals.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: