It's written in a blog, so it must be true.
And disputed by you, so it can't be.
Topic: Stossel’s Currency Conundrum - page 2. (Read 4010 times)
And disputed by you, so it can't be.
That clearly refers to paper notes.
I've seen some of these penny presses that have a sticker explaining (in small print) how and why the machine is legal.
I've also seen penny presses outside of the US that use US pennies, because it is prohibited to reshape the local currency.
I've seen some of these penny presses that have a sticker explaining (in small print) how and why the machine is legal.
I've also seen penny presses outside of the US that use US pennies, because it is prohibited to reshape the local currency.
It is unfortunate that Stossel repeated this mis-truth that private currencies are illegal. Though Ron Paul tends to spread this misconception as well, so he is not alone.
This is based upon an incorrect understanding of "powers" granted the Federal government by the Constitution.
In short, a "power" is basically permission to violate rights. In the case of the power to "coin money", the power conveyed and the right violated are subtle. It is not, as widely believed, the power to seize private property via monetary monopoly and inflationary confiscation. That would have been in direct violation of the "just compensation" required by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and a general nullification of the basic right to property.
The power to coin money is simply the power to violate the usual presumption that possession equals ownership, in the limited case of "coins" minted by the Federal government. That means that a coin, once minted by the Federal government, remains the property of the government even when placed in general circulation. That is the reason you cannot mutilate or destroy them, and they can be seized at will (as was the case with FDR confiscating gold coins). They are not yours.
This is based upon an incorrect understanding of "powers" granted the Federal government by the Constitution.
In short, a "power" is basically permission to violate rights. In the case of the power to "coin money", the power conveyed and the right violated are subtle. It is not, as widely believed, the power to seize private property via monetary monopoly and inflationary confiscation. That would have been in direct violation of the "just compensation" required by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and a general nullification of the basic right to property.
The power to coin money is simply the power to violate the usual presumption that possession equals ownership, in the limited case of "coins" minted by the Federal government. That means that a coin, once minted by the Federal government, remains the property of the government even when placed in general circulation. That is the reason you cannot mutilate or destroy them, and they can be seized at will (as was the case with FDR confiscating gold coins). They are not yours.
Actually, you can mutilate or destroy them. Have you never seen the penny presses at tourist traps? You put in 51 cents, and the machine presses your penny into a little keepsake with a new image on it. They are all over Walt Disney World, for example. I seriously doubt that Disney Corp is going to be caught off guard doing something illegal.
I've never seen a motorized one... they're always hand crank. Maybe that way the customer is the one performing the mutilation and the corporation is insulated.
I've seen both hand cranked and electric, so no. If I recall correctly, all of those machine at WDW were electric.
It is unfortunate that Stossel repeated this mis-truth that private currencies are illegal. Though Ron Paul tends to spread this misconception as well, so he is not alone.
This is based upon an incorrect understanding of "powers" granted the Federal government by the Constitution.
In short, a "power" is basically permission to violate rights. In the case of the power to "coin money", the power conveyed and the right violated are subtle. It is not, as widely believed, the power to seize private property via monetary monopoly and inflationary confiscation. That would have been in direct violation of the "just compensation" required by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and a general nullification of the basic right to property.
The power to coin money is simply the power to violate the usual presumption that possession equals ownership, in the limited case of "coins" minted by the Federal government. That means that a coin, once minted by the Federal government, remains the property of the government even when placed in general circulation. That is the reason you cannot mutilate or destroy them, and they can be seized at will (as was the case with FDR confiscating gold coins). They are not yours.
This is based upon an incorrect understanding of "powers" granted the Federal government by the Constitution.
In short, a "power" is basically permission to violate rights. In the case of the power to "coin money", the power conveyed and the right violated are subtle. It is not, as widely believed, the power to seize private property via monetary monopoly and inflationary confiscation. That would have been in direct violation of the "just compensation" required by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and a general nullification of the basic right to property.
The power to coin money is simply the power to violate the usual presumption that possession equals ownership, in the limited case of "coins" minted by the Federal government. That means that a coin, once minted by the Federal government, remains the property of the government even when placed in general circulation. That is the reason you cannot mutilate or destroy them, and they can be seized at will (as was the case with FDR confiscating gold coins). They are not yours.
Actually, you can mutilate or destroy them. Have you never seen the penny presses at tourist traps? You put in 51 cents, and the machine presses your penny into a little keepsake with a new image on it. They are all over Walt Disney World, for example. I seriously doubt that Disney Corp is going to be caught off guard doing something illegal.
I've never seen a motorized one... they're always hand crank. Maybe that way the customer is the one performing the mutilation and the corporation is insulated.
It is unfortunate that Stossel repeated this mis-truth that private currencies are illegal. Though Ron Paul tends to spread this misconception as well, so he is not alone.
This is based upon an incorrect understanding of "powers" granted the Federal government by the Constitution.
In short, a "power" is basically permission to violate rights. In the case of the power to "coin money", the power conveyed and the right violated are subtle. It is not, as widely believed, the power to seize private property via monetary monopoly and inflationary confiscation. That would have been in direct violation of the "just compensation" required by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and a general nullification of the basic right to property.
The power to coin money is simply the power to violate the usual presumption that possession equals ownership, in the limited case of "coins" minted by the Federal government. That means that a coin, once minted by the Federal government, remains the property of the government even when placed in general circulation. That is the reason you cannot mutilate or destroy them, and they can be seized at will (as was the case with FDR confiscating gold coins). They are not yours.
This is based upon an incorrect understanding of "powers" granted the Federal government by the Constitution.
In short, a "power" is basically permission to violate rights. In the case of the power to "coin money", the power conveyed and the right violated are subtle. It is not, as widely believed, the power to seize private property via monetary monopoly and inflationary confiscation. That would have been in direct violation of the "just compensation" required by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and a general nullification of the basic right to property.
The power to coin money is simply the power to violate the usual presumption that possession equals ownership, in the limited case of "coins" minted by the Federal government. That means that a coin, once minted by the Federal government, remains the property of the government even when placed in general circulation. That is the reason you cannot mutilate or destroy them, and they can be seized at will (as was the case with FDR confiscating gold coins). They are not yours.
Actually, you can mutilate or destroy them. Have you never seen the penny presses at tourist traps? You put in 51 cents, and the machine presses your penny into a little keepsake with a new image on it. They are all over Walt Disney World, for example. I seriously doubt that Disney Corp is going to be caught off guard doing something illegal.
Quote
I'm sure the Federal Reserve doesn't want competing currencies, but Bitcoin is so low on the radar right now they don't even consider it. It's far more resource-conserving to merely ignore Bitcoin right now.
It's good to know that the Federal Reserve doesn't communicate with the CIA.
Gavin will visit the CIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4q4i2Ktd0
~Bruno~
Interesting segment. It adds weight to my opinion that Bitcoin is being "managed", just like gold is.
And to back up my crazy tin-foil-hat assertions, here's a ZH article on gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-explains-how-gold-manipulated-and-why-thats-okay
with the very interesting comment:
Could Bitcoin be on that list?
And to back up my crazy tin-foil-hat assertions, here's a ZH article on gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-explains-how-gold-manipulated-and-why-thats-okay
with the very interesting comment:
Quote
Gold is an important signaling mechanism, and our entire money system is faith-based. Of course anything and everything that could cast doubt on that system would be controlled if it could be controlled.
(my emphasis added)Could Bitcoin be on that list?
But can it be controlled?
Interesting segment. It adds weight to my opinion that Bitcoin is being "managed", just like gold is.
And to back up my crazy tin-foil-hat assertions, here's a ZH article on gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-explains-how-gold-manipulated-and-why-thats-okay
with the very interesting comment:
Could Bitcoin be on that list?
It's written in a blog, so it must be true. And to back up my crazy tin-foil-hat assertions, here's a ZH article on gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-explains-how-gold-manipulated-and-why-thats-okay
with the very interesting comment:
Quote
Gold is an important signaling mechanism, and our entire money system is faith-based. Of course anything and everything that could cast doubt on that system would be controlled if it could be controlled.
(my emphasis added)Could Bitcoin be on that list?
Interesting segment. It adds weight to my opinion that Bitcoin is being "managed", just like gold is.
And to back up my crazy tin-foil-hat assertions, here's a ZH article on gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-explains-how-gold-manipulated-and-why-thats-okay
with the very interesting comment:
Could Bitcoin be on that list?
And to back up my crazy tin-foil-hat assertions, here's a ZH article on gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-explains-how-gold-manipulated-and-why-thats-okay
with the very interesting comment:
Quote
Gold is an important signaling mechanism, and our entire money system is faith-based. Of course anything and everything that could cast doubt on that system would be controlled if it could be controlled.
(my emphasis added)Could Bitcoin be on that list?
I know, my point was Stossel's first stupid comment was the oh so predicable drug one. I wanted to show that its a moronic statement and people need to see past it.
Besides, its so much easier and cheaper to buy weed from my local dealer then it is on SR
Besides, its so much easier and cheaper to buy weed from my local dealer then it is on SR
Stossel is a libertarian. He's just doing the common reaction to something like Bitcoin to get a knowledgeable guest to easily shoot it down. It's a good back-and-forth between two people that ultimately agree with each other, but he's just stating the immediate and obvious contrarian point in order to show why that point is so silly. So yeah, you're right, it's a silly statement, but one that probably needed to be addressed.
Stossel is always using the devils advocate.
Ron Paul uses the term "illegal" to refer to the exchange of said currency without government taxation. In other words, while it's not strictly illegal, he knows for certain the government would want it to be.
I'm sure the Federal Reserve doesn't want competing currencies, but Bitcoin is so low on the radar right now they don't even consider it. It's far more resource-conserving to merely ignore Bitcoin right now.
Of course, if you guys start actually using it to avoid taxes when bargaining you're going to finally get enough value in it for them to consider doing something. Right now they can just ignore that it exists.
I'm sure the Federal Reserve doesn't want competing currencies, but Bitcoin is so low on the radar right now they don't even consider it. It's far more resource-conserving to merely ignore Bitcoin right now.
Of course, if you guys start actually using it to avoid taxes when bargaining you're going to finally get enough value in it for them to consider doing something. Right now they can just ignore that it exists.
It is unfortunate that Stossel repeated this mis-truth that private currencies are illegal. Though Ron Paul tends to spread this misconception as well, so he is not alone.
This is based upon an incorrect understanding of "powers" granted the Federal government by the Constitution.
In short, a "power" is basically permission to violate rights. In the case of the power to "coin money", the power conveyed and the right violated are subtle. It is not, as widely believed, the power to seize private property via monetary monopoly and inflationary confiscation. That would have been in direct violation of the "just compensation" required by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and a general nullification of the basic right to property.
The power to coin money is simply the power to violate the usual presumption that possession equals ownership, in the limited case of "coins" minted by the Federal government. That means that a coin, once minted by the Federal government, remains the property of the government even when placed in general circulation. That is the reason you cannot mutilate or destroy them, and they can be seized at will (as was the case with FDR confiscating gold coins). They are not yours.
Render unto Caesar...
Furthermore, the Federal government was never specifically granted the power to prohibit "competing" currencies. The Constitution does not grant a monetary monopoly. This is what is being claimed as an implied power yet, as we can all see, has terrible implications and is in direct violation of the Constitution and a threat to the fundamental right to private property. None of the founders would have deliberately intended this interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, this lie of monetary monopoly was constructed by a few private bankers for their own lucrative gain, in order to outlaw competitors. These same private interests now control the US money supply through the private Federal Reserve Bank, and via their strategic control over key government officials, in order to maintain their monopoly rents through color of law.
That is not to say, however, that private currencies cannot be (and haven't in the past been) regulated for other reasons, such as to prevent fraud or outright theft. But that is another matter entirely, and not related to Bitcoin or the legality of private currencies in general.
This is based upon an incorrect understanding of "powers" granted the Federal government by the Constitution.
In short, a "power" is basically permission to violate rights. In the case of the power to "coin money", the power conveyed and the right violated are subtle. It is not, as widely believed, the power to seize private property via monetary monopoly and inflationary confiscation. That would have been in direct violation of the "just compensation" required by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and a general nullification of the basic right to property.
The power to coin money is simply the power to violate the usual presumption that possession equals ownership, in the limited case of "coins" minted by the Federal government. That means that a coin, once minted by the Federal government, remains the property of the government even when placed in general circulation. That is the reason you cannot mutilate or destroy them, and they can be seized at will (as was the case with FDR confiscating gold coins). They are not yours.
Render unto Caesar...
Furthermore, the Federal government was never specifically granted the power to prohibit "competing" currencies. The Constitution does not grant a monetary monopoly. This is what is being claimed as an implied power yet, as we can all see, has terrible implications and is in direct violation of the Constitution and a threat to the fundamental right to private property. None of the founders would have deliberately intended this interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, this lie of monetary monopoly was constructed by a few private bankers for their own lucrative gain, in order to outlaw competitors. These same private interests now control the US money supply through the private Federal Reserve Bank, and via their strategic control over key government officials, in order to maintain their monopoly rents through color of law.
That is not to say, however, that private currencies cannot be (and haven't in the past been) regulated for other reasons, such as to prevent fraud or outright theft. But that is another matter entirely, and not related to Bitcoin or the legality of private currencies in general.
There is a corresponding blog post by Stossel:
- http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/01/stossel-dollars
And as far as the allegation that private currency is illegal, the U.S. Attorney's political commentary after the Nothaus trial does not a law make:
- http://mises.org/daily/5184
- http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/01/stossel-dollars
And as far as the allegation that private currency is illegal, the U.S. Attorney's political commentary after the Nothaus trial does not a law make:
- http://mises.org/daily/5184
Quote
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish a uniform standard of value. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money not issued under its own authority, in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation. Thus, it is a violation of law for private coin systems to compete with the official coinage of the United States.
Looks like this kid needed to be arrested upon exiting Chuck E. Cheese.
Might Bitcoin be unconstitutional? Yes.
Would it be enforceable with a digital currency where offshore intermediaries serve to accept Bitcoins and pay merchants in USD? Unlikely, as long as those intermediaries can operate freely on foreign soil.
Would this whole situation be attractive to merchants? No.
... the power to coin money ...
Perhaps this phrase specifically means the minting of coins. There is a corresponding blog post by Stossel:
- http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/01/stossel-dollars
And as far as the allegation that private currency is illegal, the U.S. Attorney's political commentary after the Nothaus trial does not a law make:
- http://mises.org/daily/5184
- http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/01/stossel-dollars
And as far as the allegation that private currency is illegal, the U.S. Attorney's political commentary after the Nothaus trial does not a law make:
- http://mises.org/daily/5184
Quote
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish a uniform standard of value. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money not issued under its own authority, in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation. Thus, it is a violation of law for private coin systems to compete with the official coinage of the United States.
Looks like this kid needed to be arrested upon exiting Chuck E. Cheese.
There is a corresponding blog post by Stossel:
- http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/01/stossel-dollars
And as far as the allegation that private currency is illegal, the U.S. Attorney's political commentary after the Nothaus trial does not a law make:
- http://mises.org/daily/5184
- http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/01/stossel-dollars
And as far as the allegation that private currency is illegal, the U.S. Attorney's political commentary after the Nothaus trial does not a law make:
- http://mises.org/daily/5184
I know, my point was Stossel's first stupid comment was the oh so predicable drug one. I wanted to show that its a moronic statement and people need to see past it.
Besides, its so much easier and cheaper to buy weed from my local dealer then it is on SR
Besides, its so much easier and cheaper to buy weed from my local dealer then it is on SR
Stossel is a libertarian. He's just doing the common reaction to something like Bitcoin to get a knowledgeable guest to easily shoot it down. It's a good back-and-forth between two people that ultimately agree with each other, but he's just stating the immediate and obvious contrarian point in order to show why that point is so silly. So yeah, you're right, it's a silly statement, but one that probably needed to be addressed.
I'm not sure what the Nielsen rating is for Stossel's show, but it did offer up to its viewers awareness to Bitcoin, as well as informing those not in the know that drugs can be purchased online with same and fiat.
~Bruno~
I know, my point was Stossel's first stupid comment was the oh so predicable drug one. I wanted to show that its a moronic statement and people need to see past it.
Besides, its so much easier and cheaper to buy weed from my local dealer then it is on SR
Besides, its so much easier and cheaper to buy weed from my local dealer then it is on SR
Stossel is a libertarian. He's just doing the common reaction to something like Bitcoin to get a knowledgeable guest to easily shoot it down. It's a good back-and-forth between two people that ultimately agree with each other, but he's just stating the immediate and obvious contrarian point in order to show why that point is so silly. So yeah, you're right, it's a silly statement, but one that probably needed to be addressed.
Best line from the segment:
"Well people use Bitcoin to buy marijuana, dont they?"
"Um yes, but people use Cash to buy marijuana as well"
"Well people use Bitcoin to buy marijuana, dont they?"
"Um yes, but people use Cash to buy marijuana as well"
Short and sweet, but he's providing Bitcoin as a valid alternative to the monetary problem...not trying to fix a drug addiction LOL
I know, my point was Stossel's first stupid comment was the oh so predicable drug one. I wanted to show that its a moronic statement and people need to see past it.
Besides, its so much easier and cheaper to buy weed from my local dealer then it is on SR
Maybe it was just a talking point that he wanted to hit on. Stossel is a Libertarian and would prefer for all things of that matter to be legalized.
I enjoyed it though.
Jump to: