For example, Article I, section 10 says "No state shall...coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts..."
And look what the US has today; fiat money. No only is it not gold or silver, but it's not event backed by it.
Based on this definition, nobody in the US earns any money so nobody should have to pay any income tax since basically everyone's income is 0 ounces of gold and 0 ounces of silver. Yet this argument would not stand in court even though it's 100% logical.
We're all just a bunch of monkeys. The implementation of the law always comes down to what the most popular monkeys think it is.
If the most popular monkeys think that the definition of 'gold' actually means 'feces', then before you know it, we will all start throwing feces at each other as a means of payment.
What's the point of defining the law using words if people will later distort the meaning of those words to suit their purpose? you may as well rely on gut feelings and majority rule to decide what is right or wrong.
This is yet one more attempt to distort the original meaning of the law by drawing attention to specific words that are immaterial to the original intent of the law.
The states are in fact printing money which is not gold or silver no matter how you look at it... It doesn't matter that they are all printing the same currency. This activity is happening within the physical confines of individual states and they are using that money to pay their debts.
The simplest interpretation is the correct one. Especially when you consider the history of the US.
If the law was merely about not allowing states have sovereignty over their own fiat currencies then they would not have mentioned the words 'gold' or 'silver'.
- Good alternative to Universal Basic Income since people can produce it themselves directly.
- The unsanitary aspect of it will help prevent too large accumulation of it. People will have a stronger incentive to put their money to work instead of hoarding it.
- Not difficult to measure since it can be weighed and banks could print paper bills that are backed by it using weight as the units of account.
The main downside I can see is that it will encourage people to eat more and demand for laxatives would grow significantly.
For example, Article I, section 10 says "No state shall...coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts..."
And look what the US has today; fiat money. No only is it not gold or silver, but it's not event backed by it.
Based on this definition, nobody in the US earns any money so nobody should have to pay any income tax since basically everyone's income is 0 ounces of gold and 0 ounces of silver. Yet this argument would not stand in court even though it's 100% logical.
We're all just a bunch of monkeys. The implementation of the law always comes down to what the most popular monkeys think it is.
If the most popular monkeys think that the definition of 'gold' actually means 'feces', then before you know it, we will all start throwing feces at each other as a means of payment.
What's the point of defining the law using words if people will later distort the meaning of those words to suit their purpose? you may as well rely on gut feelings and majority rule to decide what is right or wrong.