Crime Against Humanity: “Legal” Tender, or The Moneypoly of Moneypulation, 2

We have been led to believe that it is necessary and in the order of things to bully people into accepting the money issued by their own country. Well, it is not, period.
The harsh truth is, legal tender is a monopolist and totalitarian imposition to be demolished; if a medium of exchange and payment is good, it is wanted and hence there is no need to impose it by force; if force is needed to impose it, then it is not wanted and hence it is not good.
The general rule of thumb is: ruling a money legal tender rules its fraudulent nature, too, and that’s that.

We’re facing here two relevant issues: The obvious issue is that law is exposed to be exploited for the purpose of abuse and injustice. The less obvious issue can be detected by observing, figuratively speaking, paper money with a magnifying glass until two of its qualities – token money and legal tender – come into view, and then inspecting them more closely and carefully until they show up as they actually are: altogether distinct and separate.

When banks issued their own banknotes under free banking, you were free to accept them in payment or reject them, just as you are free to accept in payment or reject someone’s promissory note. The point is, you were free.

One thing is the form of money: what it is made of, and whether it does have intrinsic value or not. Quite another thing is whether you are free to accept it or reject it as payment.

Truth is, up till now I used the term “fiat money” incorrectly. And quite certainly I’m not alone in this. The incorrectness consists of confusing the two qualities of token money and legal tender as if they were a single indistinct quality.