In the latest example that the U.S. dollar just ain't what it used to be, some shops in New York City have begun accepting euros and other foreign currency as payment for merchandise.
So if it's OK to use alternative foreign currency as legal tender, can someone please explain to me why the feds raided Liberty Dollar?
And yeah, that's a rhetorical question. As is the title of this post.
UPDATE: I guess some people read into things what they want. For the record, in case it wasn't clear, what I'm pointing out is the unfairness of unequal treatment. If a business owner wants to accept obsolete Deuchmarks or even informed consent forms in exchange for goods and services, that's between him and his customer.
5 comments:
I'm not a lawyer and I never played one on TV. That aside, my hypothesis is that using the name of "Liberty Dollar" on the coins caused the ruckus.
Service and small businesses have exchanged in barter since the beginning of time. I just left the DOT webpage and read that businesses have to accept US currency as legal tender for all debts public and private. Companies can, as policy, restrict usage of pennies or bills larger than $20's. I am pretty sure they are free to accept foreign exchange.
I'd like to know the law that prevents businesses and individuals from getting together and printing their own currency and avoiding the dollar and Federal Reserve scam all together?
Subster
As I said back when it happened, the trouble that befell Liberty Dollar, was to fix an election.
Nothing done by Liberty Dollar was or is illegal. I see ads on the television every night for different coins and medallions made of precious metals, most with some American or patriotic logo.
The difference is that these purveyors of privately minted coins are not openly supporting Ron Paul's candidacy for president.
Shit! Ray Charles could see that.
One other difference, SA--foreign currency is government-issued, and since the plans are for us to all be one big happy family anyway...besides, we can brook no competition from private actors or people will start to get the idea that maybe there are other things in life they can do without our sanction, control or oversight, voluntary things, where coercion would be considered bad for business...
That's not another difference, David. That is why they wanted to quash any support for Paul. That is basically what he has said for years.
Liberty Dollar may have garnered him some support, ergo, preemptive strike.
Even though it is an oxymoron, "same difference" applies.
Liberty Dollar's support for a candidate and their position that people are free to make their own arrangements in trade could not be tolerated. Same difference.
Post a Comment