Justice Scalia Engages the Central Banking Defender in Oral Argument

-


 

Justice Scalia Engages the Central Banking Defender in Oral Argument

Justice Scalia: Counsel, you’ve argued that fiat currency derives its value from public trust and government backing. This seems to echo your point that confidence alone sustains the system. Am I correct?

Counsel: Yes, Justice Scalia. Public trust and the government’s legal framework underpin the value of fiat currency.

Justice Scalia: Fascinating. Let me borrow an example from Mr. Moore, who eloquently described copper conducting electricity through a wire or steel holding up a skyscraper. These materials have utility—something tangible and real. Tell me, what utility does fiat currency possess outside of trust?

Counsel: Fiat currency facilitates exchange and functions as a unit of account, Your Honor. It doesn’t need intrinsic utility like copper or steel.

Justice Scalia: Doesn’t need utility? Counsel, let’s not avoid the obvious. Mr. Moore illustrated this well—if I declare marshmallows as legal tender and mandate their use for taxes, would that work?

Counsel: Your Honor, marshmallows lack durability and practicality.

Justice Scalia: Precisely, just as Mr. Moore pointed out! Utility matters. Durability matters. Trust alone doesn’t hold up buildings or conduct electricity, and trust alone won’t hold up an economy. Fiat currency, lacking utility, is little more than marshmallows dressed in legal jargon.

Justice Scalia: Let’s shift gears. You’ve stated inflation is a natural consequence of economic growth and incentivizes spending. Is that right?

Counsel: That’s correct, Your Honor. Inflation encourages economic activity by deterring hoarding.

Justice Scalia: Deterring hoarding? That’s an interesting way to phrase penalizing thrift. Let’s use another one of Mr. Moore’s analogies: If my neighbor breaks my window, and I hire a glazier to fix it, have we grown the economy?

Counsel: That analogy oversimplifies economic principles, Your Honor.

Justice Scalia: Oh, oversimplifies! Counsel, Mr. Moore’s analogy captures the essence of your argument. Inflation, like a broken window, forces people to spend just to maintain their position. This isn’t growth—it’s running on a hamster wheel. Worse yet, it’s a hamster wheel built by coercion.

Justice Scalia: Now, let’s examine your claim that the Federal Reserve provides stability. Mr. Moore reminded us of the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, the financial crisis of 2008, and a century of warfare. Do you contend that these represent stability?

Counsel: Your Honor, those crises would have been worse without central banking interventions.

Justice Scalia: The firefighter-arsonist defense, as Mr. Moore so aptly described it. You argue that central banking mitigates harm, but Mr. Moore has shown it causes the harm in the first place. You can’t claim to be the savior of a system you’ve destabilized.

Justice Scalia: You’ve mentioned taxes as a means to ensure the public accepts fiat currency. Let me borrow yet another point from Mr. Moore. He noted that no matter how beneficial an act might be to its instigator, if it harms the recipient, it’s unconstitutional. Would you advocate for theft, so long as the thief spends the money quickly for the public good?

Counsel: Of course not, Your Honor. Theft is fundamentally different from taxation.

Justice Scalia: Is it? Mr. Moore’s analogy about the doctor breaking legs for job security comes to mind. When the government inflates the currency, it erodes purchasing power—essentially stealing value from savers. How is that different from theft?

Counsel: Inflation isn’t theft, Your Honor; it’s a tool to stabilize the economy.

Justice Scalia: Stabilize, you say? Counsel, Mr. Moore pointed out the absurdity of measuring "growth" in a finite world of resources. If every atom that exists today existed yesterday, how does inflating currency create more wealth? Doesn’t it simply redistribute the pie?

Counsel: Economic growth reflects better organization of resources, Your Honor.

Justice Scalia: Ah, better organization! Mr. Moore rightly noted that fiat systems don’t organize resources—they expand their influence to control more of them. What you call "growth" is a euphemism for central banks growing their reach. You’re selling marshmallows and calling them skyscrapers.

Justice Scalia: One final point, Counsel. Mr. Moore raised the issue of unintended consequences. You admitted inflation devalues savings, and you conceded it redistributes wealth. Isn’t that foreseeable harm, not an unintended consequence?

Counsel: Unintended consequences are inherent in any system, Your Honor.

Justice Scalia: Unintended or inevitable? Mr. Moore argued that if the harm is predictable, it’s by design. When savers lose value, retirees are impoverished, and debtors are crushed under compounding interest, you can’t call that "unintended." You might as well say you broke the window to keep the glazier employed.

Justice Scalia: Counsel, your argument boils down to this: "Trust us; we know what’s best." But Mr. Moore has exposed the fallacy at the heart of your defense—an economic system that depends on coercion, redistribution, and inflation cannot call itself just. Thank you. You may sit down.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more