Topic: By "basic rule of law" you mean what? (Read 437 times)

My favorite movie of all time is definitely The Patriot.  There is a part where Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson) rides into the British fort to negotiate the release of his captured men with British General Gates. During the negotiations, Gates brings up the Colonials' tactic of making the British officers their prime targets. One of Gates' reasons was that "Gentlemen" wouldn't engage in such tactics to which Benjamin Martin replies something like "If by "gentlemen" you mean the slaughterers of innocent women and children I take that as a complement".

Yesterday, during the Senate hearings  Jennifer Shasky Calvery seems to have made a similar appeal as Gates ...

“The decision to bring virtual currency within the scope of our regulatory framework should be viewed by those who respect and obey the basic rule of law as a positive development for this sector,” said Jennifer Shasky Calvery, the director of the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Full article http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/regulators-see-value-in-bitcoin-and-investors-hasten-to-agree/?_r=0

I can't help to follow  similarly to Benjamin Martin by responding -

Dear Ms. Calverly:
If by "rule of law" you mean the multi-generational impoverishment of future generations through half-century long deficit spending, the constant revision upwards of debt-ceilings, and the rampant stealing of pension funds of the elderly through unlimited "printing" of phony money then I would consider being outside that "law", then, as a complement and as being on the side of righteousness.

For our lawmakers to take the high moral ground here is laughable, down-right ridiculous and insidious.

This country was founded largely on the principle of "no taxation without representation" yet for the last fifty plus years Congress after Congress have passed the debt onto future generations that can't retaliate by voting them out of office. The fault is not completely on the Politicians as it has become the norm of the preceding generation to pass the debt onto the future ones for a whopping 50+ years.

What makes the "crime" even more heinous, however, is the fact that the debt is as fictional as the money. Since 97% of the currency exists only in digital form the only excuse that the debt wasn't paid immediately is that they failed to add more digits to a computer. At a previous point of time they would have been guilty of not printing enough paper money to pay it off but today they are guilty merely of not adding more digits.

There is an adage of "the blind leading the blind" that ends with both falling into a ditch. The lawmakers have had their chance and have utterly failed and violated any semblance of the moral, social contract they were entusted with. Trust is the foundation of any relationship and now, after violating that trust for 50+ years, you are trying to lay a guilt trip and accuse otherwise oppressed generations of being lawless? You've got to be kidding!