In case it is not obvious by now, I have a very strong interest in the legal underpinnings of our monetary system. I find it to be of fundamental relevance to almost every discussion we have in law school, since the default assumption (in certain Torts classes more than others, perhaps) tends to assume the neutrality of money itself, or at the very best make very vague assertions about how it functions. These implicit assumptions are then used to justify the exclusion of certain avenues of enquiry, to present contingent phenomena as axiomatic laws of nature, and to obfuscate issues from their true bases.

While my own journey down the rabbit-hole that is money originated in the distinct but related field of economics, I recently discovered - to my delight - that there is an active body of critical legal scholarship addressing similar issues.

The most interesting paper I have read in this body so far is this one by Christine Desan, a Harvard Law Professor and legal historian operating in the critical legal studies/realist vein. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in economics, issues relating to common law liability and the formative history of the U.S. Constitution (which forms a large part of the paper's focus).

I'd also be interested in discussing the paper's arguments and their contemporary implications further with anyone who is willing.

-- RohanGrey - 09 Jul 2012