A long dragged dispute between the U.S. Department of Labor and a landscaping company has produced a footnote that left Institute of Justice (IJ) Senior Attorney Rob Johnson baffled.

In C.S. Lawn & Landscape v. U.S. Department of Labor, the District Court Of Columbia made this allegation, arguing that “money is not necessarily ‘property’ for constitutional purposes.” The court elaborates on this notion, claiming that this is true due to several considerations.

The footnote explains that the government is the one that creates fiat money, and it is also empowered to retake part of that money in the form of taxation, which is not considered a deprivation of property.

Also, the court claims that “thinking of money as ‘property’ would also make little sense” given that the U.S. Congress faculty of spending money has been disputed even as it has been supported by the idea of providing for the general welfare as stated in the constitution, originating numerous debates on this.

If money were considered property, the court continues, these debates would have no root, given that it has the function of disposing of U.S. property proclaimed in the constitution.

According to Johnson, this can create a precedent for taking money in this kind of dispute without a trial and a judge. “If your money is not your property, what is to stop the government from just seizing all of it tomorrow—for any reason it gives?” he stresses.

He concluded that, even when these arguments are a flop, they force a rethinking of the current monetary system, highlighting the need to hold at least some part of one’s wealth in the form of gold or cryptocurrency.

Read more: 16 Years Later: How Bitcoin’s Genesis Block Sparked a New Era of Money

The case will be elevated to a federal court soon, and Johnson believes this notion will be withdrawn.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。