Liberty Dollar office raided

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Although, given the similarities their currency has to dollars, it could be argued they were counterfeiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you know what counterfiting means.

[iron81]

It just occurred to me that this might be a good thing for libertarians. A big part of what allowed the Administration to get away with things like datamining is that no one wanted to go to court to stop them. The case law was ambiguous so people would just cooperate rather than fight. If this winds up in court and the government loses, it will bring publicity to the cause of private money and establish its legality.

[2/325Falcon]

Interesting Wiki on Boggs notes. I think I saw this guy on a PBS special on counterfeiting. I was shocked people would take his hand drawn art as money, but it turns out to be a good deal.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm going to have to stop posting the link to their website as proof that alternate currencies are legal. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] Although, given the similarities their currency has to dollars, it could be argued they were counterfeiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is private tender legal or illegal in the US? Alot of times during currency debates, people claim that it is legal. I'm confused [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[iron81]

Well, the Liberty people had a quote from a Mint representative saying that it was legal, but I just read in this thread that the DOJ said its illegal. Before the Fed, most currency was privately issued. Under modern rules, the issue is apparently unclear and will have to be settled in court.

[jstnrgrs]

I would guess that, in light of the upcomming inflation of the US dollar, the government will do whatever it can to squash private money. Otherwise, it won't be long before no one is using US dollars.

[pvn]

This topic came up on a mailing list I'm on, which is populated by people who are generally pretty smart. The topic of course wandered over to pros and cons of a gold standard in general, when this exchange came up:

[ QUOTE ]
>Something else to consider that the gold-backers must have an answer
>for: there is a finite amount of gold, and my bet is that its current
>value is drastically less than that of the global economy.

Another problem related to this is the 'value' of a countries economy. The UK for instance gathered a lot more gold and silver to it long ago than the US which is much younger. If we are stuck with the 'gold' standard then UK's value would always be greater than US and UK citizens would retain stronger buying power despite inflation because their 'gold' backed value would almost always be greater than a US citizen with the same relative amount of wealth. They have more gold per citizen so each citizen benefits from that. Of course no one in the US would be able to purchase US goods so their economy would collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

The standard "zomg we'll run out of money" thing, which I addressed, but this follow-up left me completely flabbergasted. I asked the poster to elaborate and explain wtf he meant, but I haven't heard back yet. Anyone have any idea what he's talking about here? It seems he's trying to equate savings with production, on an aggregate scale (big fallacy there), and on top of that I think he's way off on his estimates of how much bullion the UK has in the first place (didn't they basically drain the treasury during WWII?).

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The standard "zomg we'll run out of money" thing, which I addressed, but this follow-up left me completely flabbergasted. I asked the poster to elaborate and explain wtf he meant, but I haven't heard back yet. Anyone have any idea what he's talking about here? It seems he's trying to equate savings with production, on an aggregate scale (big fallacy there), and on top of that I think he's way off on his estimates of how much bullion the UK has in the first place (didn't they basically drain the treasury during WWII?).

[/ QUOTE ]

his fallacy is thinking that everying is gold backed. like a skyscaper would have to have a ton of gold somewhere. the only thing that has to be gold backed is the currency.

also commercial paper wouldn't have to be gold backed, so you could still do your billion dollar deals without even bringing gold into it. I mean, look at a big takeover or something, usually it is for mostly stock (*sometimes all stock), and just a bit of cash.

off top of head could be wrong i guess.

[BluffTHIS!]

pvn,

Can you or some other Liberty dollar type currency supporter tell me why one would risk holding such certificates, that seem to be at risk from the US gov't, instead of just holding gold? While obviously paper or e-currency *if it is safe* (or more worthy than fiat currency), is more convenient, surely one can keep the bulk of such holdings in safe deposit boxes.

[Zygote]

this is disgutting. Can one single statist on here justify why this is even slightly a good idea?

What does this say about the government?

I beg of someone to please answer.