July Money carries a letter by George A. Startup addressed to me in which he states, "Please stop trying to confuse the people more by talking about money to be issued by private enterprisers."

To avoid confusion, let me summarize. Broadly speaking, there are now three schools of monetary thought: a) those who denounce government money issue and bend the knee to the banks; b) those who denounce the banks and bend the knee to the government; c) those who denounce both banks and government and bend the knee to nobody, while asserting the exclusive right of the citizen to issue money to negotiate his exchanges.

Mr. Startup is of the second, and I am of the third. Those who like to bend the knee to some power will choose the first or second school. Those who are self-reliant, self-assertive, and have private initiative, all typically American qualities, will align with the third group, leaving those of the first two groups to fight each other.

However, I must remind Mr. Startup that in the battle of the knee-benders, neither side can quote the Constitution in its support. It is not true, as Mr. Startup states, that "the Constitution places the power to issue money in the monopoly of the federal government." Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress shall have the power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin." Thus the exercise of the power is optional and not mandatory. Nothing is said about exclusive power or monopoly. There is nowhere any prohibition against the people issuing money. It is true, that such money could not be made legal tender without government sanction, since the state governments are forbidden to make anything but federal coins legal tender. But legal tender is immaterial, since even the government accepts checks in payment of taxes.

The same section quoted above also provides that Congress shall have power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." Here is another optional power. Congress can issue or not, borrow or not; so, both groups of knee-benders can call theirs "Constitutional money." In other words, "Constitutional money" doesn't mean anything. The only possible unconstitutional money would be an issue by a state government as legal tender.

Let's not muddy the waters by misquoting and misusing the Constitution, which is perfectly neutral in this fight. We are all free to align ourselves with any of the three schools. The third school (private enterprise money) has the advantage in that it doesn't have to pass a law or engage in politics. It depends upon voluntary cooperation.