21 ms·

> No. To make it legal tender means requiring acceptance of that item as payment for a monetary debt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender https://en.wiki

> No. To make it legal tender means requiring acceptance of that item as payment for a monetary debt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender). It would impact everyone in Arizona, not just the state government. Yeah, that's what they said. Everyone in Arizona is Arizona. It's called metonymy.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Arizona, the state, may choose to accept Bitcoin, for things like fines, state taxes, etc. Arizona, the state, may not choose to require Arizonans to accept Bitcoin as legal tender. That power is reserved for the Federal government. The bill attempts the latter, and is flatly unconstitutional.
- posterboy 5y ago
  Another comment argued with sources that this is not entailed, because businesses can choose to decline electronic cash already. I have heared that Disneyland is crazy like that and EC is virtually ubiquitious, but that's not the norm. Conversely, you don't expect to pay with a 500 everywhere (if you have that, EU phased it out recently)
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    You don't (typically) incur a debt to Disneyland, so legal tender doesn't apply. Disneyland can refuse to accept cash at the ticketing office, but if they let you in and billed you later, they'd have to. The concept of legal tender is specific to payment of debts. If you did a credit card chargeback and Disneyland sued you for the new debt that caused, they'd have to accept cash as payment.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    Again, you're confused about what "legal tender" is. It is up to sellers to decide what form of payment they accept. It is perfectly legal for a seller to accept only a form of electronic payment, or only certain sizes of bank notes, or payment in bitcoin or blueberries or bubblegum. This is all totally fine and has nothing at all to do with the concept of legal tender. Legal tender is simply what kind of payment must be accepted for the settlement of a monetary debt. If you owe your bank $1,000 as an overdraft, the bank is required to accept repayment of that debt in U.S. currency. It cannot require another form of payment; meaning if it refuses U.S. currency then tries to sue you, the court will find that the debt has been satisfied. In practical terms, this never happens.
    - posterboy 5y ago
      You are commiting an etymological fallacy. What counts first of all is what legal tender has been in name when the constitution was written. Second, the meaning of the word when the bill was written may have reasonably changed and it may still be sensible. If this is warranted, because the state has the power to mint gold coins, they can peg the gold coin to the bitcoin, if you want to see it that way. This is illusory of course and there might be regulations in place to prohibit this, and there might be no other ways around it. Still, this isn't simply simple and you are selling it short.
      - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        This is word salad. The states do not have the power to mint gold coins; they only have the right to require that gold coins be accepted for the payment of monetary debt. Only the Federal government has the right to mint coins, a power reserved by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 - which similarly reserves the right to determine value of coins. This is very simple, it is very straightforward; anyone with a grounding in the common law would understand it exceedingly clearly - doesn't the fact that everyone in this thread disagrees with your interpretation at essentially every level give you a bit of pause?
        posterboy 5y ago
        > The states do not have the power to mint gold coins That was due to a misreading on my part. > doesn't the fact that everyone in this thread disagrees with your interpretation at essentially every level give you a bit of pause? Quite the opposite, it gave the impression you are willing to waste your time.

ceejayoz 5y ago

Arizona, the state, may choose to accept Bitcoin, for things like fines, state taxes, etc. Arizona, the state, may not choose to require Arizonans to accept Bitcoin as legal tender. That power is reserved for the Federal government. The bill attempts the latter, and is flatly unconstitutional.

posterboy 5y ago
Another comment argued with sources that this is not entailed, because businesses can choose to decline electronic cash already. I have heared that Disneyland is crazy like that and EC is virtually ubiquitious, but that's not the norm. Conversely, you don't expect to pay with a 500 everywhere (if you have that, EU phased it out recently)
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  You don't (typically) incur a debt to Disneyland, so legal tender doesn't apply. Disneyland can refuse to accept cash at the ticketing office, but if they let you in and billed you later, they'd have to. The concept of legal tender is specific to payment of debts. If you did a credit card chargeback and Disneyland sued you for the new debt that caused, they'd have to accept cash as payment.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  Again, you're confused about what "legal tender" is. It is up to sellers to decide what form of payment they accept. It is perfectly legal for a seller to accept only a form of electronic payment, or only certain sizes of bank notes, or payment in bitcoin or blueberries or bubblegum. This is all totally fine and has nothing at all to do with the concept of legal tender. Legal tender is simply what kind of payment must be accepted for the settlement of a monetary debt. If you owe your bank $1,000 as an overdraft, the bank is required to accept repayment of that debt in U.S. currency. It cannot require another form of payment; meaning if it refuses U.S. currency then tries to sue you, the court will find that the debt has been satisfied. In practical terms, this never happens.
  - posterboy 5y ago
    You are commiting an etymological fallacy. What counts first of all is what legal tender has been in name when the constitution was written. Second, the meaning of the word when the bill was written may have reasonably changed and it may still be sensible. If this is warranted, because the state has the power to mint gold coins, they can peg the gold coin to the bitcoin, if you want to see it that way. This is illusory of course and there might be regulations in place to prohibit this, and there might be no other ways around it. Still, this isn't simply simple and you are selling it short.
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      This is word salad. The states do not have the power to mint gold coins; they only have the right to require that gold coins be accepted for the payment of monetary debt. Only the Federal government has the right to mint coins, a power reserved by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 - which similarly reserves the right to determine value of coins. This is very simple, it is very straightforward; anyone with a grounding in the common law would understand it exceedingly clearly - doesn't the fact that everyone in this thread disagrees with your interpretation at essentially every level give you a bit of pause?
      - posterboy 5y ago
        > The states do not have the power to mint gold coins That was due to a misreading on my part. > doesn't the fact that everyone in this thread disagrees with your interpretation at essentially every level give you a bit of pause? Quite the opposite, it gave the impression you are willing to waste your time.