5 ms·

There were many private currencies in the 19th century that the government never claimed power over. Here's one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph

• dangoldin 13y ago
  Some still exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Hours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Hours
• stinkytaco 13y ago
  I don't know that the government has any illusions over the issuance of currency. I can spend and exchange my foreign currency in the US, correct? I can take my US dollars and transfer them and get foreign currency in another country as well. What this says is that any commercial exchange is subject to government regulation.
  • ferdo 13y ago
    The US government claiming power over the currency its banking corporation issues is one thing. I don't know why people just accept, without question, the claim that the government has regulating authority over a currency that it doesn't issue.
    • rayiner 13y ago
      Because the Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
      • ferdo 13y ago
        This isn't Congress doing the "regulating". It's the Executive Branch.
        • rayiner 13y ago
          It's the executive branch enforcing regulatory laws duly passed by Congress.
          • ferdo 13y ago
            It strikes many, me included, as an overreach of executive power.
            • mpyne 13y ago
              Then vote in Representatives who agree with you, instead of claiming that the government has no authority. They now have the authority, they were given it by the legislature, which is in the legislature's power to do. If you want the executive to not have the authority then you must have the legislature take it back. But simply claiming that the government doesn't have the authority just because you wish they would not have the authority, doesn't actually make it so.
              • ferdo 13y ago
                When government loses consent of the governed, it no longer has authority to govern. That won't stop those that believe themselves fit to rule from ruling if they have the power to do so. As I had to explain the difference between lunch and arbitrary use of government power, do I also have to explain the difference between government of consent and tyranny?
                • tptacek 13y ago
                  Another great example of how discussing politics on HN is frustrating. You started out with an observation that the executive branch had overreached. It was pointed out that they were delegated this power explicitly by the legislature. Now your argument changes, without acknowledging the correction or the error of your previous comment, and, as usual, it shifts to something too nebulous to discuss. It's not your fault; this is just a really terrible venue for political discussions.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    • stinkytaco 13y ago
      They are not claiming regulating authority over a currency. They are not saying it can't be exchanged or that they control its production. They are saying you can't say "It's Bitcoin, so I didn't cheat anyone out of anything." You can't defraud someone in any currency in the US. Or launder money or perform illegal activities. I can't mug a tourist and take the money out of their wallet and then claim that because I didn't steal any US currency I'm not a thief.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > The US government claiming power over the currency its banking corporation issues is one thing. I don't know why people just accept, without question, the claim that the government has regulating authority over a currency that it doesn't issue. This case isn't about regulating authority over currency. Its about whether the fact that an investment was sold for bitcoins isntead of a fiat currency takes that investment out of the scope of the definition of "securities" subject to various provisions of the Exchange Act relating to securities fraud.
  • mistercow 13y ago
    >I can spend and exchange my foreign currency in the US, correct? Yes, but as I understand it, foreign currency within the US is still regulated.
• dragonwriter 13y ago
  > There were many private currencies in the 19th century that the government never claimed power over. The fact that Congress chooses, for a time, not to exercise a power within the scope of its enumerated powers in Art. I does not in any way change the fact that it is an enumerated power. > This move with regard to Bitcoin is merely Bank.Gov trying to protect its monopoly on the issuing of currency. No, this is about punishing fraud in selling investments, not about issuing currency.
  • ferdo 13y ago
    > this is about punishing fraud in selling investments Were that true, the principals of Goldman Sachs would be in jail.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Were that true, the principals of Goldman Sachs would be in jail. No, actually, that has nothing to do with what the issues in this case are.
      • ferdo 13y ago
        It certainly calls the intentions of the SEC into question.
        • dragonwriter 13y ago
          > It certainly calls the intentions of the SEC into question. If you want to make the argument that there is evidence (whether from their response to Goldman-Sachs or otherwise) that the SEC's interest in the case at issue here is not securities fraud, go ahead and make the argument. Waving your hand in the direction of Goldman-Sachs, however, is not making that argument.
          • ferdo 13y ago
            That the SEC has a relatively small and new target in their sites while letting the larger and far older targets skate is all the argument I need.
• mpyne 13y ago
  The key point is "claimed power over". Had those currencies become significant and used in interstate commerce the government may well have started enforcing their power to regulate it. Any medium of exchange can theoretically be used as currency (e.g. cartons of cigarettes in prison, or cans of chewing tobacco on a submerged submarine on its third month of patrol). Whether the government pays attention to it or not will depend on whether that type of currency starts to act as coinage or as a medium of interstate commerce, but just because the government doesn't deign to notice cowrie shells being used for trade doesn't mean they don't have the power to regulate it.
  • ferdo 13y ago
    > Had those currencies become significant and used in interstate commerce They were. The government's reaction to the popularity of the Bechtler coins was to open two mints in North Carolina, not to "regulate" Bechtler's coins.
    • mpyne 13y ago
      Which was still the government's choice. I chose a turkey flatbread sub at Subway yesterday. I might still choose meatball should I go next week.
      • ferdo 13y ago
        I shouldn't need to to explain this to you, but there's a vast difference between what you choose for lunch and how a government exercises arbitrary power.
        • dragonwriter 13y ago
          The point, I believe, is that the argument that the government has no legitimate power to regulate (non-government-issued-currency X) because in the past it chose not to regulate (non-government-issued-currency Y) in the same manner, despite several express Constitutional grants of power that speak to relevant powers of government is, well, completely bunk. The government does not lose enumerated powers, or the ability to apply them in a particular manner, because it chose not to apply them in that manner at one time in the past in a similar circumstance. You can, of course, make the argument that, power aside, the government should not use its enumerated powers in the way in question and should instead act as it did in the past case, but that takes more than waving your hand in the direction of the past case and asserting that it exists and therefore the restraint the government exercised then must be repeated, it takes actually making the case that that decision would be correct in the present circumstances.