4 ms·

This bit confuses me: At his federal trial, witnesses testified to the Liberty Dollar’s criminal similitude to standard American coins. They said his coins inc

This bit confuses me: At his federal trial, witnesses testified to the Liberty Dollar’s criminal similitude to standard American coins. They said his coins included images of Lady Liberty and cheekily reversed “In God We Trust” to “Trust in God.” Then again, his coins were made of real gold and silver, as American coins are not, and came in different sizes and unusual denominations of $10 and $20. They may be similar to US coin, which is, if nothing else, dumb. But if they're made from gold and silver, wouldn't they be more valuable than the coins they were confused with? Is that not solid proof against mens rea? Gold is $55/g, silver is $32/g. A US dollar coin is 8.1g, a quarter 5.6g.

bitops 14y ago
> But if they're made from gold and silver, wouldn't they be more valuable than the coins they were confused with? Sort of, but not really. The issue here is mixing the ideas of "a dollar" with "a piece of gold worth a dollar" or "a piece of silver worth a dollar". They are not the same thing. There's an abstract notion of 'Value: $1.00' that both a piece of paper and a piece of gold links up to. Hopefully that is a clear explanation.
- mseebach 14y ago
  No, I get they're not the same thing, that's why I stated that it's dumb they've been issuing coins that resemble dollars. But it would appear that the counterfeit coins are actually worth more than the real coins - that's usually not the point of counterfeiting, and that makes it unclear who the victim of this crime really is.
  - bitops 14y ago
    [original comment redacted] > that makes it unclear who the victim of this crime really is. Ah, okay - sorry, I missed this. There isn't really "a victim" here per se; it'd be hard to point at a person and say that they were hurt by what this guy was doing. Rather, it's a crime because it has the potential to destabilize the rules of how our financial system works. And, by implication, how our political system works. Money and politics go together, everyone accepts this. Government rhetoric (I guess) requires them to label it terrorism, but that's really stupid. They could have used it as an opportunity to explain how our economic system actually works. Of course, if you explain how the system works, people may ask deeper questions, etc.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      [response to redacted comment] OK: You make an 8 gram silver coin and call it a "One Liberty Dollar". It will cost you $256 in silver alone. You then trick a bank into accepting it, so they deposit it into your account with a value of $1. The coin isn't a real US dollar, so you're guilty of counterfeiting currency. In reality, however, you've lost significantly more than you've gained, and the bank should be able to recover most of the lost dollar by selling the silver. It's clearly criminal to pass off something that isn't a real coin as a real coin, and the you should be punished for that. But it seems logical to me that charges of conspiracy and terrorism should be weighed against the fact that any conspiracy certainly wasn't to your financial benefit - as counterfeiting conspiracies very much tend to be. Other comments have suggested that the coins were indeed worth less than they were accepted for, so that makes it more clear cut. I still think the quoted paragraph is poorly phrased - it would have made sense to include that very simple fact.
      - bitops 14y ago
        > It's clearly criminal to pass off something that isn't a real coin as a real coin, and the you should be punished for that. But it seems logical to me that charges of conspiracy and terrorism should be weighed against the fact that any conspiracy certainly wasn't to your financial benefit - as counterfeiting conspiracies very much tend to be. I agree that the government's choice of language was extremely poor and wrong-headed. They certainly didn't do anyone any favors by just labeling the guy a terrorist and saying that's it. I don't think it matters whether or not you lost money on going through with the act. If you want to throw your hard-earned money away to make a point, I suppose that's a privilege.
        boon 14y ago
        NO. It's a RIGHT.
TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
After doing a tiny bit of research (google and wikipedia), it seems mens rea does not apply if said crime is considered a strict liability crime. Examples are selling alcohol to underage, or statutory rape. Counterfeiting is another strict liability crime. His real crime is, of course, competing with the government. You will lose, unless you take up arms. The government has no problems using excessive force to stop you.
- bitops 14y ago
  This is one of the few times I'd ever say that government crackdown is a good thing. One country having multiple currencies at the same time could become a big logistical headache. It would definitely have political and social implications. [EDIT: I welcome downvotes on comments that are not constructive. If you think this is totally off the wall, please give a good explanation why.]
  - wseymour 14y ago
    How so? Are currency exchanges between nations particularly arduous right now? Determine an exchange rate, multiply by it, and you're done.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    The logistics aren't different from accepting payment with any one of a dozen different credit cards (each of which might be settled in literally hundreds of currencies) or cheques. Or bartering. Yes, it would have political implications because politicians can't devalue the loans they've made abroad by devaluing the currency, effectively (but opaquely) taxing savings. I'm not sure what social implications it would have?
  - treerock 14y ago
    America already has multiple currencies[1] without it being a problem. This guys has been convicted of counterfeiting legal tender. Why would anyone take a gold coin worth $10 say, and try to pass it off as a normal dollar? They are losing money. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in...
hristov 14y ago
He did not use pure gold or silver. The coins had less gold or silver than their respective face value. By the way, there are gold and silver american coins that are still legal tender. There are many different legal tender gold and silver us coins that have a woman on them and the word liberty and they are often referred to as liberty dollars. One side of his coin is especially similar to a silver coin called the peace dollar (but also often referred to as the liberty dollar).
- bunderbunder 14y ago
  > He did not use pure gold or silver. The coins had less gold or silver than their respective face value. Putting in an amount of gold equal to its supposed monetary value would have been a losing business proposition. He'd have been losing money every single time he traded a Liberty dollar for US dollars. If the Liberty dollar is worth exactly the amount of gold that's in it, then the only way he could even break even is if the cost of minting coins were zero. He'd essentially be turning himself into an easy way for currency speculators to avoid brokerage fees, and losing his shirt in the process. (This is assuming he weren't using gold that he had previously stockpiled when it was at a lower price.) Putting only a little precious metal in the coins is a much better business decision. Having some precious metal in there would be reassuring to members of his target demographic. Having less than the coin's stated value in there means that he had some shot at maintaining control over the market and having a viable business plan. That, and I suspect that keeping the actual value of gold at arm's length would be an absolute necessity. Just look at what the price of gold was doing over the time that Liberty dollars were being issued. A currency that's constantly strengthening against all others at a double-digit rate is not a currency on which one could base a stable economy. cf.) Dutch disease.

bitops 14y ago

> But if they're made from gold and silver, wouldn't they be more valuable than the coins they were confused with? Sort of, but not really. The issue here is mixing the ideas of "a dollar" with "a piece of gold worth a dollar" or "a piece of silver worth a dollar". They are not the same thing. There's an abstract notion of 'Value: $1.00' that both a piece of paper and a piece of gold links up to. Hopefully that is a clear explanation.

mseebach 14y ago
No, I get they're not the same thing, that's why I stated that it's dumb they've been issuing coins that resemble dollars. But it would appear that the counterfeit coins are actually worth more than the real coins - that's usually not the point of counterfeiting, and that makes it unclear who the victim of this crime really is.
- bitops 14y ago
  [original comment redacted] > that makes it unclear who the victim of this crime really is. Ah, okay - sorry, I missed this. There isn't really "a victim" here per se; it'd be hard to point at a person and say that they were hurt by what this guy was doing. Rather, it's a crime because it has the potential to destabilize the rules of how our financial system works. And, by implication, how our political system works. Money and politics go together, everyone accepts this. Government rhetoric (I guess) requires them to label it terrorism, but that's really stupid. They could have used it as an opportunity to explain how our economic system actually works. Of course, if you explain how the system works, people may ask deeper questions, etc.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    [response to redacted comment] OK: You make an 8 gram silver coin and call it a "One Liberty Dollar". It will cost you $256 in silver alone. You then trick a bank into accepting it, so they deposit it into your account with a value of $1. The coin isn't a real US dollar, so you're guilty of counterfeiting currency. In reality, however, you've lost significantly more than you've gained, and the bank should be able to recover most of the lost dollar by selling the silver. It's clearly criminal to pass off something that isn't a real coin as a real coin, and the you should be punished for that. But it seems logical to me that charges of conspiracy and terrorism should be weighed against the fact that any conspiracy certainly wasn't to your financial benefit - as counterfeiting conspiracies very much tend to be. Other comments have suggested that the coins were indeed worth less than they were accepted for, so that makes it more clear cut. I still think the quoted paragraph is poorly phrased - it would have made sense to include that very simple fact.
    - bitops 14y ago
      > It's clearly criminal to pass off something that isn't a real coin as a real coin, and the you should be punished for that. But it seems logical to me that charges of conspiracy and terrorism should be weighed against the fact that any conspiracy certainly wasn't to your financial benefit - as counterfeiting conspiracies very much tend to be. I agree that the government's choice of language was extremely poor and wrong-headed. They certainly didn't do anyone any favors by just labeling the guy a terrorist and saying that's it. I don't think it matters whether or not you lost money on going through with the act. If you want to throw your hard-earned money away to make a point, I suppose that's a privilege.
      - boon 14y ago
        NO. It's a RIGHT.

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago

After doing a tiny bit of research (google and wikipedia), it seems mens rea does not apply if said crime is considered a strict liability crime. Examples are selling alcohol to underage, or statutory rape. Counterfeiting is another strict liability crime. His real crime is, of course, competing with the government. You will lose, unless you take up arms. The government has no problems using excessive force to stop you.

bitops 14y ago
This is one of the few times I'd ever say that government crackdown is a good thing. One country having multiple currencies at the same time could become a big logistical headache. It would definitely have political and social implications. [EDIT: I welcome downvotes on comments that are not constructive. If you think this is totally off the wall, please give a good explanation why.]
- wseymour 14y ago
  How so? Are currency exchanges between nations particularly arduous right now? Determine an exchange rate, multiply by it, and you're done.
- mseebach 14y ago
  The logistics aren't different from accepting payment with any one of a dozen different credit cards (each of which might be settled in literally hundreds of currencies) or cheques. Or bartering. Yes, it would have political implications because politicians can't devalue the loans they've made abroad by devaluing the currency, effectively (but opaquely) taxing savings. I'm not sure what social implications it would have?
- treerock 14y ago
  America already has multiple currencies[1] without it being a problem. This guys has been convicted of counterfeiting legal tender. Why would anyone take a gold coin worth $10 say, and try to pass it off as a normal dollar? They are losing money. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in...

hristov 14y ago

He did not use pure gold or silver. The coins had less gold or silver than their respective face value. By the way, there are gold and silver american coins that are still legal tender. There are many different legal tender gold and silver us coins that have a woman on them and the word liberty and they are often referred to as liberty dollars. One side of his coin is especially similar to a silver coin called the peace dollar (but also often referred to as the liberty dollar).

bunderbunder 14y ago
> He did not use pure gold or silver. The coins had less gold or silver than their respective face value. Putting in an amount of gold equal to its supposed monetary value would have been a losing business proposition. He'd have been losing money every single time he traded a Liberty dollar for US dollars. If the Liberty dollar is worth exactly the amount of gold that's in it, then the only way he could even break even is if the cost of minting coins were zero. He'd essentially be turning himself into an easy way for currency speculators to avoid brokerage fees, and losing his shirt in the process. (This is assuming he weren't using gold that he had previously stockpiled when it was at a lower price.) Putting only a little precious metal in the coins is a much better business decision. Having some precious metal in there would be reassuring to members of his target demographic. Having less than the coin's stated value in there means that he had some shot at maintaining control over the market and having a viable business plan. That, and I suspect that keeping the actual value of gold at arm's length would be an absolute necessity. Just look at what the price of gold was doing over the time that Liberty dollars were being issued. A currency that's constantly strengthening against all others at a double-digit rate is not a currency on which one could base a stable economy. cf.) Dutch disease.