Liberty Dollar Closes

[Imalawman]

There has to be more than just government "law" to identify what is right and wrong.

Yup, sure is. Tons of sources. I look to the Bible, other sacred texts, secular philosophy, etc. Law is a reflection of society's collective ethos. It is NOT a reflection of what Steve Sy believes right or wrong. nor is it meant to be an objective standard of truth. Government's and individuals' actions are judged legal or illegal based on the law - the collective morality of society. You may indeed be morally right in your actions, but that is not the standard for determining legal culpability.

[SteveSy]

There has to be more than just government "law" to identify what is right and wrong.

Yup, sure is. Tons of sources. I look to the Bible, other sacred texts, secular philosophy, etc. Law is a reflection of society's collective ethos. It is NOT a reflection of what Steve Sy believes right or wrong. nor is it meant to be an objective standard of truth. Government's and individuals' actions are judged legal or illegal based on the law - the collective morality of society. You may indeed be morally right in your actions, but that is not the standard for determining legal culpability.

True, but I never claimed the government was stealing according to their own law now did I? I claimed they were stealing according to my belief. Just like most people believe what happened in 1941 was stealing, though no law at that time said it was. I hope you can grasp the concept I'm trying to put forward.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Let's stop there because the entire premise of your argument is based on the fact that he was promoting his minted coins as legal tender. What evidence do you have to suggest this?

Look at how he is promoting it on his web site. Though he states..."So please remember, the Liberty Dollar is a private voluntary barter currency. It is not government money so it is not intended to be used as "Legal Tender", "Current Money" or a "Coin".

"Time For a New Dollar...."

"REAL Money You Can Trust"

"Which would you rather have a currency that has a proven history of depreciation or a currency that has appreciated 500% over the past ten years? NOW is the time to take action to protect your purchasing power and profit from hyperinflation!

Read his section, "How to use the Liberty Dollar". He is promoting his products as a (non-government) money whether he wishes to admit that or not. Ok, I'll agree, hes not promoting it as "legal tender, but he is promoting it as coined Money, and only Congress has the authority to do so.

Time for a "new dollar" that isnt "coined money"? Which side of his arse is he bellowing out of ?!

Meth is illegal unminted gold and silver bullion purchased or acquired legally isn't.

Only Congress has the authority to coin money, which is what his intentions are with the gold and silver bullion.

Kind of right. They do have the constitutional power to coin money and regulate their money. However the constitution does not say no one else can coin money.

Did Congress delegate any authority to Von Haus to do what he did? Not to my knowledge.

More importantly the constitution clearly states State's can coin gold and silver so its obvious congress does not possess the sole authority to do so.

Steve, go back and reread Article 1, Section 10. "No state shall ... coin money.."

Also, banks issued money for years prior to federal regulation and no one looked twice. Are you suggesting all of those banks or counties acted illegally for over a century?

I've not researched that, I will not offer an opinion.

Legal tender is just short for saying the government can create a law making its money legal tender for all debts. It can't make its money the only money legal for all debts.

Ahhh, but your forgetting the 10th Amendment. Congress was given sole authority to coin money, and now recall the 10th amendment. It indirectly states that since they (the feds) have the power to do so, we the ppl do not.

Again, the constitution clearly states this by stating State's must use only gold and silver in use of coins for debts.

I have no prob with that. As a matter of fact I going round and round with a State dept on that very issue currently.

I don't believe I insulted you....I just said you would need to be checked for retardation IF you believe LD's are counterfeit U.S. backed currency. Meaning they even look remotely the same. I stand by that because I know you are smarter than that.

I never stated that I believed they were counterfeit currency. I never claimed they were counterfeit anything. lol

And, thank you for the compliment. I know what I want to say, I simple have difficult with (my ADD) in putting my thoughts in clearly readable/understandable words.

[SteveSy]

Only Congress has the authority to coin money, which is what his intentions are with the gold and silver bullion.

Please tell me where you find this sole authority. I see where they can mint money and regulate the value thereof but I fail to see where the word "exclusive" or anything like it appears anywhere.

Kind of right. They do have the constitutional power to coin money and regulate their money. However the constitution does not say no one else can coin money.

Did Congress delegate any authority to Von Haus to do what he did? Not to my knowledge.

see above

More importantly the constitution clearly states State's can coin gold and silver so its obvious congress does not possess the sole authority to do so.

Steve, go back and reread Article 1, Section 10. "No state shall ... coin money.."

But they can coin gold and silver for tender of debts in the same section. That seems to me to say they are forbidden to issue fiat currency for payment of debts public or private....what else can it mean?

Legal tender is just short for saying the government can create a law making its money legal tender for all debts. It can't make its money the only money legal for all debts.

Ahhh, but your forgetting the 10th Amendment. Congress was given sole authority to coin money, and now recall the 10th amendment. It indirectly states that since they (the feds) have the power to do so, we the ppl do not.

Your adding in words that aren't there... the word "sole" or "exclusive" do not appear in the constitution. When such a power is exclusive the constitution clearly says so. Such as in "exclusive jurisdiction" and "exclusive legislation".

[Pottapaug1938]

You're right, now please show where there is evidence Nothaus was promoting his notes or coins as "legal tender". The entire point of his money was to not be "legal tender", his money was the antitheses of government money.

No, the entire point of his "money" was that it would circulate in parallel with legal tender US money. At best, it would be a medium of barter, just like -- for example -- Engelhard ingots; but given that the Liberty tokens are denominated in dollars there is a clear danger that a person to whom a Liberty token is tendered might confuse it with genuine US coinage.

We live in a world where the US public often does not recognize even certain genuine legal tender coins and currency -- try spending a 50 cent piece or a $2 bill, sometime, and see how people react (one guy even got arrested for passing counterfeit money -- namely, genuine $2 bills). There's another case where a cashier took a $10 gold coin as a dollar coin, since it was the same size and color as the dollar coin. All this is a side issue, and I don't want to take this topic off thread; but as far as I am concerned, von Nothaus clearly intended to come up with something much more than a simple medium of barter.

[Pottapaug1938]

Steve, I'm quickly tiring of your word games and your inability to understand plain English. One last time: Article I, Section 10, prohibits states from coining money. Period. And as for the "1941" remark, your use of a bigoted piece of Nazi legislation, intended to strip Jews of their rightful property, as an argument in your favor is beneath contempt.

[SteveSy]

You're right, now please show where there is evidence Nothaus was promoting his notes or coins as "legal tender". The entire point of his money was to not be "legal tender", his money was the antitheses of government money.

No, the entire point of his "money" was that it would circulate in parallel with legal tender US money. At best, it would be a medium of barter, just like -- for example -- Engelhard ingots; but given that the Liberty tokens are denominated in dollars there is a clear danger that a person to whom a Liberty token is tendered might confuse it with genuine US coinage.

I suppose that is a possibility but then its also a possibility play money might be accepted also.

We live in a world where the US public often does not recognize even certain genuine legal tender coins and currency -- try spending a 50 cent piece or a $2 bill, sometime, and see how people react (one guy even got arrested for passing counterfeit money -- namely, genuine $2 bills). There's another case where a cashier took a $10 gold coin as a dollar coin, since it was the same size and color as the dollar coin. All this is a side issue, and I don't want to take this topic off thread; but as far as I am concerned, von Nothaus clearly intended to come up with something much more than a simple medium of barter.

First we must prove that the government and only the government can print money or mediums of exchange which may be identified as "money". The constitution does not support this. History does not support this. Again, banks issued money privately for over a century with the word "dollar", "liberty" and other identifiers on it without ever facing a constitutional discussion. In fact U.S. currency was just one of many types of minted money circulating around decades after the adoption of the constitution. It has only been recently that the government has declared this sole authority. Strange how it took the government over 200 years to find it.

[SteveSy]

Steve, I'm quickly tiring of your word games and your inability to understand plain English. One last time: Article I, Section 10, prohibits states from coining money.

It allows in the same paragraph the ability to coin gold and silver for tender of debts. Maybe you should look up what was meant by "money" back in 1787. That might help you because "money" as written in the constitution does not mean the same thing it does today. Money was limited in scope, today it includes a whole lot more. The Elliot Debates are a good place to start.

Period. And as for the "1941" remark, your use of a bigoted piece of Nazi legislation, intended to strip Jews of their rightful property, as an argument in your favor is beneath contempt.

Well, I'm not using it in the way you're understanding it. I've clarified it so that even someone of trivial intellect could grasp it. Apparently the concept is above your ability to understand, I apologize.

[Imalawman]

I'm finding the banter between GSE and Steve to be most amusing....

[SteveSy]

I'm finding the banter between GSE and Steve to be most amusing....

I think you'll find that far more civil than the one's I've seen on here between several of you.

[Pottapaug1938]

It allows in the same paragraph the ability to coin gold and silver for tender of debts.

Period. And as for the "1941" remark, your use of a bigoted piece of Nazi legislation, intended to strip Jews of their rightful property, as an argument in your favor is beneath contempt.

Well, I'm not using it in the way you're understanding it. I've clarified it so that even someone of trivial intellect could grasp it. Apparently the concept is above your ability to understand, I apologize.

No! No! No! The only mention of gold or silver in Section 10 is where states are prohibited from making anything else legal tender! If I'm wrong -- give me an EXACT quote. The quote must contain the word "coin". What I see is the Tenth Amendment saying that powers are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, unless "prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States". Since Section 10 says that "no State shall... coin money", how could you possibly say that a state CAN coin money?

And as for the 1941 quote -- if I were you, I wouldn't make cracks about "trivial intellect" and "above (your) ability to understand. Let me try to spell it out for you: the 1941 was a means to strip Jews of their legal property, enacted by a government intent on their physical and economic destruction. How you could even THINK of using that sort of a law to bolster your argument in favor of Liberty Dollars defies explanation. If you are unable to appreciate that difference, then I give up.

[Brandybuck]

We tried the idea of privately issued currency before. Google the term "broken bank notes". As for privately minted coins, I shudder to think of all the "coins" that we'd see, "layered" in silver or gold, or perhaps lightweight, clogging up our monetary system. We'd probably wind up with coins like the ones that used to circulate in China. They were tested by the recipient, and then "chopmarked" as a way of stating that the recipient had tested them and found them to be genuine. By the time that these coins circulated to any great extent, they were so chopmarked as to be greatly disfigured. I've seen examples that became bowl-shaped from all the chomarking.

No thanks, to private-issue coins or currency.

The US has had a strange and twisted monetary history, and so should not be used as examples of monetary policy, for either side of the issue. The chief reason is that each state had its own banking laws. Thus it was almost laissez faire at the federal level, but extremely regulated at the state level. Examples were the near universal prohibition on branch banking, having to be chartered within the state, varying levels of mandated reserves, etc. These kept banks very small and local, so that the US had an extraordinary amount of bank runs, as banks were indelibly tied to the local economy. A bad harvest would cause the local bank to fail. Canada allowed branch banking, and bank runs much rarer.

One would do much better to look at Scotland and Ireland for examples of free banking. Check out papers by Larry White or Steve Horwitz.

As for private coinage, it was very common throughout history, and worked well. When the Bank of England refused to issue copper or silver coins, small change became a huge problem, and some merchants resorted to issuing private coinage. Determining the quality of a coin is fairly simple. Ridges prevent clipping, mints can gain trust so that people will refuse coins of disreputable mints, etc. Vending machines can verify coins, surely banks and merchants can too! The sizes and weights of coins are going to be quickly standardized, because coins will be useless if they are not widely used.

But that all said, I doubt that a modern free banking system will have too many metallic coins. This is the digital age, and a form of debit card (one with no transaction costs) would most likely replace coinage.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

I'm finding the banter between GSE and Steve to be most amusing....

I think you'll find that far more civil than the one's I've seen on here between several of you.

Steve, you and I know how to debate one another without behaving like prehistoric Homo sapiens (i.e. cave men)

[SteveSy]

No! No! No! The only mention of gold or silver in Section 10 is where states are prohibited from making anything else legal tender! If I'm wrong -- give me an EXACT quote. The quote must contain the word "coin".

So if "money" is a coin used to pay debts wouldn't it be kind of silly to say State's can only coin silver or gold for tender of debts? The fact is "money" as used in that clause means legal tender currency. Meaning the government has the power to declare it's minted issue good for all contractual obligations regardless specie.

And as for the 1941 quote -- if I were you, I wouldn't make cracks about "trivial intellect" and "above (your) ability to understand. Let me try to spell it out for you: the 1941 was a means to strip Jews of their legal property, enacted by a government intent on their physical and economic destruction. How you could even THINK of using that sort of a law to bolster your argument in favor of Liberty Dollars defies explanation. If you are unable to appreciate that difference, then I give up.

It has nothing to do with Jews or Hitler. It has to do with the fact that a government made a law allowing for confiscation. Clearly it was not theft under German law to confiscate property, but we would all agree it was theft regardless of their law. The point is "law" is not the only compass to determine what is or is not something. Certainly from a legal perspective the government isn't stealing anything when it confiscates something. But the law does not define reality, it still may be theft regardless of what they say they can or can not do or what they say it is or isn't. Simply stating "well, the law says it isn't stealing so therefore it isn't" is meaningless. If that statement is true then it wasn't stealing in 1941 because the law said it wasn't. I hope that's clear enough for you.

[Pottapaug1938]

Clear enough, Steve; but you are still grossly stretching the point when you use an overtly confiscatory law to criticize monetary policy that may be wrongheaded, but is certainly not overtly confiscatory.

[SteveSy]

Clear enough, Steve; but you are still grossly stretching the point when you use an overtly confiscatory law to criticize monetary policy that may be wrongheaded, but is certainly not overtly confiscatory.

That was not the comparison I was trying to make. The fact that it was overly confiscatory in 1941 just makes the example obvious. Just because the government makes a law does not make reality change. If its wrong its wrong, if its theft its theft.

I personally believe the government stole all that bullion and has absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever giving it back to the rightful owners. They didn't want a competing currency and even if Norfed was a poor example of one it set a precedence that the government didn't want set. The government simply used it's power to destroy Norfed to set an example. Taking all that bullion would destroy the public's willingness to try an alternative currency again knowing that they risk losing all of their bullion that backs the currency and would end up holding worthless paper.

The government accomplished its mission without ever proving anything.

[Pottapaug1938]

Much better, Steve -- although I still disagree. Now, how about you and I move on, and let the other Quatloosers have some say in the matter?

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Please tell me where you find this sole authority. I see where they can mint money and regulate the value thereof but I fail to see where the word "exclusive" or anything like it appears anywhere.

Congress has the power to...coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Section 10. No state shall ... coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where do you find any authority, for the States or "we the ppl" to coin money, above? You don't.

A question for you Steve...How can the US government effectively regulate the value of money if they do not have complete authority/jurisdiction to do so in the first place?

Kind of right. They do have the constitutional power to coin money and regulate their money. However the constitution does not say no one else can coin money.

Did Congress delegate any authority to Von Haus to do what he did? Not to my knowledge.

see above

More importantly the constitution clearly states State's can coin gold and silver so its obvious congress does not possess the sole authority to do so.

Steve, go back and reread Article 1, Section 10. "No state shall ... coin money.."

But they can coin gold and silver for tender of debts in the same section. That seems to me to say they are forbidden to issue fiat currency for payment of debts public or private....what else can it mean?

When Congress passed the fed reserve act, 1913, and created the fed reserve, they delegated the role of paper currency to this entity. Unfortunately, they had full authority to do so.

And I tell ppl frequently, ya wanna get rid of the irs, petition your Congressman to do it...Congress gave them life, they can take them out as well.

Legal tender is just short for saying the government can create a law making its money legal tender for all debts. It can't make its money the only money legal for all debts.

Ahhh, but your forgetting the 10th Amendment. Congress was given sole authority to coin money, and now recall the 10th amendment. It indirectly states that since they (the feds) have the power to do so, we the ppl do not.

Your adding in words that aren't there... the word "sole" or "exclusive" do not appear in the constitution. When such a power is exclusive the constitution clearly says so. Such as in "exclusive jurisdiction" and "exclusive legislation".

see my words above.

[notorial dissent]

Wow all those vile suspicions and not a single piece of evidence to support it. Certainly if any of that even had the hint of truth the government would have made those claims at some point. He is after all the evil Von NotHaus! \
Nothing vile about them, just plain common sense and looking at what has been done, and what has happened. That you refuse to see what is right in front of you is not my problem. Uh Steve, you do remember that indictment you just had conniptions over a few posts back, those were the claims of illegality that were presented to the grand jury along with evidence of what was going on, and they grand jury voted an indictment based on what was presented, so yes, Stevie, there have been claims and charges made. The gov’t has OFFICIALLY charged him with those crimes, and my “vile suspicions” are based on that fact, and from what I can see going on, and my own experiences with these types of businesses. Apparently the main difference between us is that I can see when a business is basically a con game, and when one is run honestly-which this one wasn’t.

btw, Yes the government did make the claim he's violated the money laundering statute, unfortunately it was only a claim because the government has no evidence of such in the indictment. Everything is predicated on the violation of the currency statute. If the government fails to prove that lame charge the rest of their accusations fall down like a flimsy house of cards.
Apparently the grand jury disagrees with your omniscience, I disagree with your omniscience for that matter, but that is an issue for another time. The fact of the matter is that the grand jury found evidence of money laundering and voted an indictment on it. Granted, the gov’t has a lot to prove, but the likelihood of them not proving it at this juncture is pretty light.

The government just wanted him out of business and they stole all the gold and silver that represented everyone's warehouse receipt. That's a little closer to the truth.
No, he was violating the counterfeiting statutes, and was involved in money laundering, and was violating the law, and probably a good number of other state and federal laws as well that he just hasn’t been charged with, YET!!! The counterfeiting and money laundering convictions will put him away for long enough the rest won’t matter.

If the jury gets to hear what "currency" is in the "legal tender" respect and they get to see his web site that clearly and unambiguously states that LD's are the antitheses of FRN's, and are to be publicly stated as such, the government will lose hands down. Only a retarded jury member could conclude Norfed was in the business of counterfeiting or promoting their LD's as government printed or backed money. Of course the government will make certain that none of the jury members have read the constitution or had anything better than an F in history prior to allowing them to serve. So the likelihood of having retarded jury members will be increased significantly. I'm certain the government will also attempt to ban the constitution from the court room.
Dream on Stevie, all they will have to do is show copies of the web pages and materials where he was touting them as substitute currency and encouraging his suckers to try and pass them as genuine coin and they will have proof for conviction. Juries generally have a pretty good BS detector, and when they hear about someone trying to pass what appears to be $20 coin for merchandise that is only worth maybe $10 they will get the picture, because if it means one of the Libbyheads could cheat a merchant that way, then it means they could cheat one of them, and that won’t fly, and if the prosecutor doesn’t present it in just such a fashion he will have made a lot more worl for himself than he needed to, since that is just exactly what was going on.

There is no doubt Norfed issued silver worth less in FRN's than the face value of the money. Of course FRN's have a number printed on them and they aren't backed by anything tangible whatsoever. It was no secret of Norfed and it was made clear and public for all to see. But to claim he was counterfeiting or trying to give the impression his money was issued or backed by the U.S. government is just pathetic. It's not illegal to print money, banks used to do it all the time. In fact the constitution makes it clear the federal government isn't the only entity capable of minting money. What's illegal, and the obvious intent of the statute, is to claim your money is legal tender, in other words backed by the U.S. government. That is what the government is attempting to charge him for, and then concocted a slue of other charges based entirely on that charge sticking.
And still more Stevsie BS. Of course the Libbys aren’t worth a numerically similar number of FRN’s for the simple reason that there is only $10 worth of silver in the $20 coins, why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp, that and there is no certification or guarantee that there is even that much silver in them. They are slugs, and of value only as collector’s curiosities. And yet Stevsie, they kept encouraging people to treat them like they were worth face value, and therein was the fraud.

Stevsie, you selective illiteracy is showing yet again, counterfeiting is not only the uttering of fake US currency, but the uttering of currency that has the appearance of US currency. No on has claimed he was counterfeiting US currency, but that he was uttering currency that appeared to be US currency. Either way, a violation of the counterfeiting laws. Again your selective illiteracy is showing, there is nothing in the statute, or the constitution that even mentions “legal tender” but it does say US currency or obligations, or the appearance of same. And yet again oh great constitutional scholar, you are wrong as to what it says, Article I § 8, and Article I § 10, show you to be a fool.

I have the indictment....the government is attempting to claim they and only they can coin money. The constitution says otherwise. More importantly banks issued money for years prior to federal control. I guess the federal courts just overlooked that glaring violation for over a century?

And, once and yet again SteveSy proves why no one should or does take him seriously.

SteveSy, the great defender of the carved in stone constitution, conveniently forgets that the Constitution very plainly and specifically says that only the gov’t can coin money , Article I § 8, and VERY and equally specifically prohibits either the states or anyone else from doing so, Article I § 10, but at the moment reality and over 200 years of history get in the road of his delusion du jour.

[Paul]

What because a bunch of people wanted to trade gold and silver coins for products and services instead of a piece of paper backed by nothing except the forced confiscation of wealth of our children and grand children sanctioned by the federal government?

Why are people arguing with a maroon who thinks that a government's promise is any better because it is "backed by" gold or silver, or that the government's source of the gold or silver to back its promise is something besides "forced confiscation" of taxpayers' wealth? Stevesy never thinks past his first knee-jerk dislike of something about our system, and cannot understand how someone can also dislike the same thing just as much as he does, but nevertheless understand and accept that the system is a defensible choice by the people to whom the authority to choose was delegated, or even see that the system is the result of choices that all have some bad results, and instead has to accuse them of liking the bad results.