4 ms·

>The fact that a civil agency enforcing securities laws is the enforcer in your model should be the hint. IRS is a civil agency, referring anything more than f

>The fact that a civil agency enforcing securities laws is the enforcer in your model should be the hint. IRS is a civil agency, referring anything more than fines to the DOJ. However, that actually illustrates your point even more. Since money is speech, and freedom of association is a right, it is not really possible to 'legally' enforce (nor practically, in-theory) others to not value some representation as valuable. That right is only inalienable when it affects 'interstate' commerce / national interests - offering this proactively as a mediated service, or becoming a sizable portion of a nation's GDP - which boils semantically back down to... what does it mean to be "illegal" > the difference between issuing a currency de novo, which is pretty much unregulated, and issuing something that's linked to U.S. dollars, which is highly regulated. This is also the other grey part. If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it. Which just re-enforces the Le Laissez Faire' attitude projection the US tries to impose. We don't need actual laws, just taxes. No wars, just foreign policy. You are correct tho - "de novo", legal. Practically, its nearly treasonous - literally.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> IRS is a civil agency, referring anything more than fines to the DOJ. Yes. The IRS doesn't make rules around what currency is legal or not. > Since money is speech No court has ever said this. > If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it What are you talking about? Plenty of economic activity is untaxed. > You are correct tho - "de novo", legal. Practically, its nearly treasonous - literally Did you ignore the links provided in the top comment?
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  > The fact that a civil agency enforcing securities laws is the enforcer in your model should be the hint. The IRS is a civil agency and they enforce laws by referring the claimant to the people with the monopoly on violence; your implication that an agency being categorized as "civil" implies, even faintly, categorical legality is the false premise I was 'hinting' to dismantle. >> Since money is speech No court has ever said this. Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC >> If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it What are you talking about? Plenty of economic activity is untaxed. >and issuing something that's linked to U.S. dollars, which is highly regulated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Substantial_impact_on_interstate_commerce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Substantial_im... >Cash-equivalent monetary commodities Did you ignore the links provided in the top comment? You can create your own currency for your own locale, sure. You cannot begin to leverage that credit/debit flow without oversight, and you cannot claim that your currency is at all pegged to the USD, or any other easily swappable/transferable commoditized store of value. > Cash-equivalent monetary commodities are, by literal definition, illegal to create Is true. You are free to create your own currency, however. It isn't illegal, but it is, however, de facto, _not_ legal tender. It's not legal, but it's not illegal.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > your implication that an agency being categorized as "civil" implies, even faintly, categorical legality is the false premise I was 'hinting' to dismantle You missed the securities law qualifier. The IRS has valid opinions on tax law. Someone using IRS actions to find insight into e.g. the legality of military actions is probably misguided. > the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations Yes. Not the same as money = speech. Independent expenditures for political campaigns are protected political speech. > You cannot begin to leverage that credit/debit flow without oversight, and you cannot claim that your currency is at all pegged to the USD Sure. Because that’s, for practical purposes, using dollars. Nobody is debating the U.S.’s power to regulate dollars. > or any other easily swappable/transferable commoditized store of value What is a commoditised store of value to you? You can use your community currency or crypto to buy grain and gold, for example. Community currency can be used to buy silver trinkets. > It isn't illegal, but it is, however, de facto, _not_ legal tender. It's not legal, but it's not illegal. Not what legal tender means. Dollars aren’t legal tender in the EU. That doesn’t put them into some quasi-legal grey area.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> IRS is a civil agency, referring anything more than fines to the DOJ. Yes. The IRS doesn't make rules around what currency is legal or not. > Since money is speech No court has ever said this. > If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it What are you talking about? Plenty of economic activity is untaxed. > You are correct tho - "de novo", legal. Practically, its nearly treasonous - literally Did you ignore the links provided in the top comment?

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
> The fact that a civil agency enforcing securities laws is the enforcer in your model should be the hint. The IRS is a civil agency and they enforce laws by referring the claimant to the people with the monopoly on violence; your implication that an agency being categorized as "civil" implies, even faintly, categorical legality is the false premise I was 'hinting' to dismantle. >> Since money is speech No court has ever said this. Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC >> If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it What are you talking about? Plenty of economic activity is untaxed. >and issuing something that's linked to U.S. dollars, which is highly regulated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Substantial_impact_on_interstate_commerce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Substantial_im... >Cash-equivalent monetary commodities Did you ignore the links provided in the top comment? You can create your own currency for your own locale, sure. You cannot begin to leverage that credit/debit flow without oversight, and you cannot claim that your currency is at all pegged to the USD, or any other easily swappable/transferable commoditized store of value. > Cash-equivalent monetary commodities are, by literal definition, illegal to create Is true. You are free to create your own currency, however. It isn't illegal, but it is, however, de facto, _not_ legal tender. It's not legal, but it's not illegal.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > your implication that an agency being categorized as "civil" implies, even faintly, categorical legality is the false premise I was 'hinting' to dismantle You missed the securities law qualifier. The IRS has valid opinions on tax law. Someone using IRS actions to find insight into e.g. the legality of military actions is probably misguided. > the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations Yes. Not the same as money = speech. Independent expenditures for political campaigns are protected political speech. > You cannot begin to leverage that credit/debit flow without oversight, and you cannot claim that your currency is at all pegged to the USD Sure. Because that’s, for practical purposes, using dollars. Nobody is debating the U.S.’s power to regulate dollars. > or any other easily swappable/transferable commoditized store of value What is a commoditised store of value to you? You can use your community currency or crypto to buy grain and gold, for example. Community currency can be used to buy silver trinkets. > It isn't illegal, but it is, however, de facto, _not_ legal tender. It's not legal, but it's not illegal. Not what legal tender means. Dollars aren’t legal tender in the EU. That doesn’t put them into some quasi-legal grey area.