The Tender For Law

English Only

ENGLISH is the international language of law and commerce. Knowing FRENCH is useful for understanding LEGAL ENGLISH, but FRENCH is not the international language of law and commerce, so we will ignore French speakers who speak to us in the language of a conquered people.

Non.

I understand that you are a proud Québécois, but the people here have nothing but contempt for you because of decades of transfer payments and NONE OF YOU understanding what Quebec sovereignty means. None of you know who Russell Rogers Smith is, and you're too proud and arrogant to teach. Just go away and be Retardier somewhere else.

Volume 7

Jul 04, 2014 1:06 AM

Tara Duncan

A FEW WORDS ON THE SUBJECT OF: LEGAL TENDER

There has been quite the kafuffle lately hereabouts, what with the ongoing chat battles regarding guru vs. guru, legal tender vs. "harmless" coloured paper, and lions vs. Christians. For the purposes of this article, there are no purported "gurus" in this forum, Christians believe they have an invisible companion, and money is a TENDER FOR LAW. On a personal note, theists could, I suppose, park their imaginary friends at the door, but as the saying goes, "If you believe that, you'll buy these shoes". That level of credulity, which by its very nature permeates every aspect of your existence, simply does not coexist well with critical thought.

Although all of these things are connected, only one of these things interests me today - money as LEGAL TENDER. I'm really confused as to why this concept seems so difficult to the average person. Our lives revolve around the concept of tenders.

Basically, a tender is an offer that can be accepted or rejected.

From childhood, we put out tenders for affection, acceptance, or stuff, to our parents and strangers, by being cute, or funny, or disingenous. If the "cuteness" is accepted we may get affection, candy or a new bike. In this system we are subject to the whims of these adults, their oversight and their rules.

In adulthood we continue to put out tenders for affection, financial or material gain, and even copulation. Here too we have made the transition to bigger acceptance and better toys, and are now subject to larger oversight and different rules.

If someone "offers" you a flower on the street, you'd better believe it's a tender for pointless conversation or a "charitable donation".

If you're a woman sitting alone in a bar and someone sidles up to you and offers to buy you a drink, what you're really dealing with is a TENDER for SEX. In this country at least, there are penalties for simply forcing yourself on another person. You can, however, raise a tender with dinner, a drink, a fur coat, or a trip to Disneyland; and few people are ultimately confused at the expected outcome.

Why then should the concept of LEGAL TENDER be so obtuse? Money is something you don't own, and didn't make. In fact you can't make it - it's a closed system. You can possess it or use it (see debt in transit), but only if you observe the terms and conditions set by others (not you again) for its use. The fact that everyone uses and values it, doesn't make availing yourself of this luxury any less a tender. If you "owned" the money you could set your own terms and conditions for its use. As you don't, the terms and conditions are set by other controlling entities. By using others' property you agree to be bound by certain rights and obligations - why else would you be participating in this system? The use of institutionalized money benefits you when you colour inside the lines, and makes you accountable for non-performance when you don't. There is, in fact, a fairly mature and far-reaching web of systems all working in concert to reward or punish depending on the profit you generate, and how well, or poorly, you perform.

Let's look at a practical example. If I have a car, and I let you use it, I might tell you that it must be returned in pristine condition, or with a full tank of gas. Those are just some of the terms I might set. I might tell you to pick up my aunt Flora at the doctor's office as well. If you agree to the stipulations I have set, you can accept the loan of the car. Let's say you forget to collect aunt Flora, and return the car on empty with garbage in the back seat. I might be angry, I might want you to pay for cleaning the car, or I might send burly men to beat you up. The only sure thing is that it's probably the last time I'll loan you the car.

Using conventional money has benefits, no doubt about it. It's more convenient than working directly for food or shelter, and more socially acceptable than bringing a chicken or pig to exchange for a new outfit. People have been conditioned to believe that money makes you happy, money buys everything you need, and money offers you legal protections that not-money never could.

It's hard to solicit a tender for affection, and one drink may not be an adequate or enforceable tender for sex. But money...different thing altogether.

Caveat emptor - you'd better read the oh-so-tiny writing on every bill. For money is a TENDER FOR LAW.

Unique ID: 462493170453287_689301251105810
Unique Facebook User ID:
1.02034833945604E+016
Last Updated:
Type of Post:
status
Place of Post:
None

Read Comments 82

Stuart Stone

'You can possess it or use it (see debt in transit), but only if you observe the terms and conditions set by others (not you again) for its use.'

It doesn't get much simpler or more profound than that! Thank you Tara Duncan

Pete Daoust

I've tried it, yesterday, I really did !! :/

Trying to avoid the peanut in peanut-butter, that was weird, but when I tried to avoid the butter, my daughter said, hey, what the fuck is wrong with you ? :/

Stuart Stone

Seriously though, the whole money is 'debt in transit' concept reminds me of a story I read/heard about the snipers picking off soldiers in the trenches in World War 1:

If I remember correctly, soldier 1 lights a cigarette, takes a drag, passes it to soldier 2, takes a drag, passes it to soldier 3, taking a drag...BOOM! (the cigarette can be likened to the debt in transit)

Soldier 1 & 2, only harm is some ingested carcinogens and some brain, blood and bone fragments on them, but soldier 3, he suffers the full liability...

That's the way I think of LEGAL TENDER notes these days :/

Marshall Stanton

I think the confusion lies in the fact that as soon as it leaves your possession, you no longer own or control it. As soon as the Treasury or the Fed puts FRNs into circulation, they have no control over them anymore than if I wrote a note and put it into circulation. I would be bound to honor it, no matter who held it, unless I explicitly placed terms such as "non-negotiable" on it, which in the case of money would make it rather useless.

Arguably, you DO create the value via your acceptance. Because whether it's gold or paper or pieces of shit, if no one is accepting it, then it's worthless! I've long argued that we never actually left the barter system. That we all ultimately offer up goods and services, but only the time between offer and acceptance is delayed via money.

Marshall Stanton

Also, this is slightly off-topic but, it's entirely possible for two people to look at the same evidence, apply critical thinking, and reach different conclusions. This happens all the time in the scientific community where people have different theories and different explanations for this or that phenomenon. So no, not all theists lack critical thinking and not all atheists possess it by default!

Stuart Stone

'So no, not all theists lack critical thinking and not all atheists possess it by default!'

I would agree with the second part of that statement.

However, IF theists do not lack critical thinking, they have failed to apply it to their theistic 'BELIEFS', so it becomes a moot point.

If you possess it but don't apply it, it is for all intents and purposes the same as not possessing it in the first place.

Scott Duncan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalik_Buterin

Mackximus Minimus has a picture if himself playing Fanboy, somewhere. It's why he and Pete Daoust came to Toronto.

That's going to be a shot with bragging rights one day :D

Stuart Stone

'Marshall Stanton And what, do you suppose, is so special about their notes versus yours and mine that that would be the case?'

They have clarified the terms and conditions attached to its use...'yours and mine' most likely DO NOT clearly display the terms of use...AND we lack the power of ENFORCING those terms.

Scott Duncan

@Marshall Stanton:I can PROVE there is NO GOD/CREATOR. You are all too ignorant at the moment. Most of you can barely add or multiply. You DON'T grasp the exponential function, to the point of hostile avoidance, so we will NEVER have a common frame of reference.

Mine is REALITY, yours is supposition and BELIEF based on ignorance. Reality doesn't care if you accept that. ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. Computer science proves THAT too.

Math is the PUREST Science. There is nothing left to discover, only the infinite possibilities of what we know we can DO now.

...or you can think there is a "creator" and ignore the begged question "where did the creator come from"?

Marshall Stanton

I'm saying we disagree on what reality is, each based on our experience and understanding of the evidence or lack thereof for that particular view. "The world is flat" appears to be a reasonable argument if you can't see the curvature of the earth. "God isn't real" appears to be a reasonable argument if you limit your definition of God to what CERTAIN theists believe.

Getting back on topic, lacking power to enforce, I'd agree with, but mostly because they aren't playing by the rules. However, I don't agree that their terms are clearly displayed, or else I do not understand how you have reached that conclusion. Show me where it says that mere use of FRNs makes me surety for them. It's not my name on the note. I'm not the one who signed it.

Stuart Stone

On June 21st, I said goodbye to my 99 year old grandmother for the last time...I had been saying goodbye to her pretty much every time I saw her since June 2013.

WHY?

Because she was dying in installments...to use a theistic rationale, her life spirit/soul was leaving her body bit by bit over the course of 12 months.

What i saw was an amazing lady slowly deteriorating physically, neurologically and mentally.

In her lucid moments, she had amazing clarity on life and what came after...she was raised a good Presbyterian.

By the end of of it all, she KNEW beyond ANY doubt that it was ALL bullshit...she said to ME (not ME to her), don't go wasting your time on any of that religion rubbish.

What 'God' that deserves any form of edification would let a lady lose ALL her dignity, as well as her physical and mental faculties, bit by bit, and allow her to suffer needlessly?

She's gone...end of.

The only place she lives on is in our collective memories...and we are all cool with that.

Ceit Butler

If you have a McDonald's coupon for a free Big Mac with the purchase of a drink, using it means you understand and agree to purchase the fucking drink. Why? Because THAT is the condition attached to its use.

Marshall Stanton

Yes, and such condition is conspicuously written on the coupon itself. So there is proper notice. All I'm asking is you show where where and when and how we were noticed of being surety. And how mere use of a FRN is different from mere use of anyone else's note. Because being the holder of anyone else's note doesn't attach suretyship.

Stuart Stone

'Show me where it says that mere use of FRNs makes me surety for them. It's not my name on the note. I'm not the one who signed it.'

'This note is legal tender' is pretty clearly displayed (although very small)...we were not taught what that means until now.

The statutes are the result of accepting that tender. The person you happen to have is subject to these statutes because they created that person too.

I'm pretty sure you can find the statutes...so to use the analogy from above re the sniper and the soldiers...

you may just be ingesting some carcinogens, you may just get hit with a bit of brain splatter, or someday, when those debts are being enforced you may be the one whose head goes boom.

Marshall Stanton

Let me help you out, since this apparently is too difficult for you. Is it in the serial numbers? Is it in the words "for all debts public and private"? Is it in the "this note is legal tender"? Is it in "federal reserve note"? Is it in "Treasury of the United States"? What evidence on the face of the bill attaches the fucking surety to my usage?

"This note is evidence that the bearer owes you five dollars." As opposed to "This note is evidence that the signer owes you five dollars."

Scott Duncan

You can dispose of the deliberately ignorant any time you wish, Pete.

Those kind are unteachable, and don't make me any less right. In the end tley sell "belief" as "knowledge" and as seen here, will LIE and say "provides no evidence".

You can try get through hos intentional obtuseness. You waste your time, though.

These people LOVE their bullshit, because they have invested so much of their identity/time into it.

Stuart Stone

Diluting the money/legal tender supply affects you (if you use that money)...because it steals away the VALUE you have invested in acquiring same.

Shrinking the money supply does the same...as soon as just ONE person loses a tangible asset as the result of either of those practices, they suffer, and as a knock on effect, we ALL suffer.

Think of musical chairs as the example.

Stuart Stone

Reality wins in the end...it doesn't matter if I believe in the bus or not...If I'm standing in the middle of the road and that bus is bearing down on me & isn't going to stop, I'm certain that the reality of the situation doesn't give a shit about what I believe.

Stuart Stone

It's the equivalent of the 3 year old kid who doesn't want to be told 'No':

They stand there with their hands over their ears, eyes closed, stamping their feet and screaming 'LALALALALALALALALALA' at the top of their lungs...this is just the cyber version of the same.

Scott Duncan

You "Ninja'd him" with ...what the group is about?

Seriously. IT'S WHAT THE GROUP IS ABOUT! IT'S IN THE FUCKING NAME OF THE FUCKING GROUP!

...but you ninja'd him with it.

I'd say this furthers my position that adults with imaginary friends are stupid.

I beg refutation. I think I'm on pretty solid footing here, from a debate standpoint! :D

Stuart Stone

I didn't comprehend his ninja reference...the ninja in question was dressed in bright red, firing canons and fireworks and waving a banner...kinda like a straight pride parade :P

ATTACK by STEALTH is not in this ninja's bag of tricks :D

Stuart Stone

Sad part is he was forewarned, by the name of the group, the subject matter of the group, numerous articles in the group, that he had been previously banned for the same erroneous belief system...

Yet when he rejoined, he obviously didn't read/question/discuss but came back with the same argument, with no new add-ons to support his position.

That is what my uncle would describe as 'malignant dumb'

Eamonn O Brien

Im not disputing the tender for law attached to money... When I was last arrested 10 months ago the guards (cops) took £150 cash from my pocket when searching me in the station. However no charges were ever brought after not giving a name, address etc.

Could my possession of said cash not have been grounds for them to charge me? :-\

Chris Evan

Very nicely written Tara. As I see it, POSSESSION is 9/10ths of the LAW. However, Liens, Titles, and CAPACITY is the remaining 1/10, yes? IF I am in possession of This NOTE is LEGAL TENDER, one can be assured that I am carrying it for SGMI, or PBiddy, Inc has some trustee duty that needs to be discharged for a PERSON. You can also be sure that they were obtained by CREATING UNITED STATES NOTES, not Federal Reserve Notes. All of those points are FOR SURE and WELL DOCUMENTED.

There may be a 90% certainty that I am BOUND to their TENDER FOR LAW, but upon a deeper examination, I am pretty sure I have deflected that presumption....

Back to top