Ron Paul introduces Nothaus law

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:58 pm

From the good doctor's congressional web site

Statement Introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act

13 December 2007

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. This act would eliminate two sections of US Code that, although ostensibly intended to punish counterfeiters, have instead been used by the government to shut down private mints. As anti-counterfeiting measures, these sections are superfluous, as 18 USC 485, 490, and 491 already grant sufficient authority to punish counterfeiters.

The two sections this bill repeals, 18 USC 486 and 489, are so broadly written as to effectively restrict any form of private coinage from competing with the products of the United States Mint. Allowing such statutes to remain in force as a catch-all provision merely encourages prosecutorial abuse. One particular egregious recent example is that of the Liberty Dollar, in which federal agents seized millions of dollars worth of private currency held by a private mint on behalf of thousands of people across the country.

Due to nearly a century of inflationary monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, the US dollar stands at historically low levels. Investors around the world are shunning the dollar, and millions of Americans see their salaries, savings accounts, and pensions eroded away by rising inflation. We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar.

As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market.

A free society should shun this type of strong-arm action, and the Free Competition in Currency Act would take the necessary first steps to freeing the market for competing currencies. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Post by **Prof** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:03 pm

Yes, and the fraud laws are broad enough, too.

This flake needs a case of Selsun Blue (c). I understand the surface attraction, but he really is an idiot. Still, in the present campaign for the Republican nomiation, Mr. "None of the Above" is a viable choice.

The Operative · Post by **The Operative** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:43 pm

I expect this bill will get as far as the other 349 or so bills he has sponsored, which is exactly nowhere.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:04 pm

Ron Paul - the candidate of hucksters, nutjobs, and the plain greedy.

silversopp · Post by **silversopp** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:36 pm

Imalawman wrote:Ron Paul - the candidate of hucksters, nutjobs, and the plain greedy.

As opposed to the other candidates who aren't backed by greedy, disreputable folks?

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:06 pm

silversopp wrote:
Imalawman wrote:Ron Paul - the candidate of hucksters, nutjobs, and the plain greedy.
As opposed to the other candidates who aren't backed by greedy, disreputable folks?

You know, I hear that comeback a lot from RP supporters. There is definitely an element of truth there. But the majority of the RP supporters I've met personally display an amazing ability to be blinded by what they're going to get by having RP as president. He's the get troops out of harms way, get your hard earned money back, and remove all the government oversight that keeps those testy liens against you candidate. The supporters don't care that he doesn't have a clue how to accomplish it, doesn't know the constitution worth a darn, and generally has harebrained ideas that have no basis in reality.

Further, he's running as republican! Why!? He doesn't agree with hardly anything the GOP stands for. In fact, RyanMC just stated earlier how the polling numbers are skewed because they're polling republicans who aren't his base. In the end, he's going to be a shrill voice of unreason throughout the whole campaign. Its not like he's going to just accept defeat and support a GOP candidate. He's not republican. He's going to continue to run as an independent or something or other.

I'm just sick of him and his supporters. They're an annoying bunch who think they've got God's gift to mankind. I'm not trying to piss off RP supporters, but I swear I've had it with flyers on my car and visitors at 7pm at my house.

silversopp · Post by **silversopp** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:39 pm

Imalawman wrote: The supporters don't care that he doesn't have a clue how to accomplish it, doesn't know the constitution worth a darn, and generally has harebrained ideas that have no basis in reality.

You have a good point. But I see it just as silly as those who thought Bush could bring Democracy to the Middle East, those who think Al Gore can save the planet, Hillary implementing universal healthcare, etc. How many strong supporters of candidate X think that candidate Y's ideas are crazy?

Further, he's running as republican! Why!? He doesn't agree with hardly anything the GOP stands for.

He's a Republican. A political party's position changes with whoever is at the top of the ticket. For example, in the mid 90s the GOP's platform called for the elimination of the Department of Education. In 2004, the platform boasted that the Bush Administration/GOP Congress increased the DoE's budget by 90%. The GOP incumbent that he beat in the primary for Congress in the mid 90s ran as a Democrat the time before. Political party affiliate has nothing to do with ideology outside of the third/minor parties. You're trying to make sense of politics - I don't think it can be done.

Post by **LPC** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:26 pm

silversopp wrote:But I see it just as silly as those who thought Bush could bring Democracy to the Middle East, those who think Al Gore can save the planet, Hillary implementing universal healthcare, etc.

I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. There's a difference between proposals that (a) have no political support and (b) wouldn't work even if enacted, and proposals that (a) have political support and (b) should (or at least might) work if enacted.

Like abolishing the Federal Reserve System (and the federal income tax), both of which have little political support and little practicality, the idea that we should invade Iraq in order to try to create a democracy by armed force never had much political support and, as we've already seen, hasn't really worked very well.

But the other two things you describe are different.

Al Gore has never claimed that he could "save the planet" and I've never heard anyone claim he could. But as far as global warming is concerned, there seems to be real support within the electorate that we should be doing something, and there is scientific support for the idea that reducing the emission of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" should be helpful. I should also point out that Al Gore, who has always been well known for his environmental views, got more votes than Bush in 2000, which means that Gore can hardly be put in the same category as some kind of "fringe" candidate.

Similarly, there is support within the majority of the voting public for some kind of universal health care, and other industrialized countries already have systems that often work quite well, so it's not like it's something that is impractical. (In fact, we already have government healthcare systems that work quite well, such as Medicare and the medical care provided by the Veterans Administration.)

You seem to be trying to equate crazies on the right with moderates on the left.

The Dog · Post by **The Dog** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:37 pm

Nikki wrote:From the good doctor's congressional web site
Statement Introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act

13 December 2007

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

<snip>
Due to nearly a century of inflationary monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, the US dollar stands at historically low levels. Investors around the world are shunning the dollar, and millions of Americans see their salaries, savings accounts, and pensions eroded away by rising inflation. We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar.

As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market.

Apart from issues previously discussed as to whether the "Liberty Dollar" is truly backed by holdings of silver, the proposal above seems to fall in the face of Gresham's Law which, simply put, states that a debased currency will drive a non debased currency out of circulation. Consequently, the Federal Reserve and the Mint would appear to have nothing to fear from this Bill.

Post by **Quixote** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:09 am

Apart from issues previously discussed as to whether the "Liberty Dollar" is truly backed by holdings of silver, the proposal above seems to fall in the face of Gresham's Law which, simply put, states that a debased currency will drive a non debased currency out of circulation. Consequently, the Federal Reserve and the Mint would appear to have nothing to fear from this Bill.

I hope you don't think that 18 USC 486 and 489 exist to protect the peace of mind of the Federal Reserve and the Mint. They can take care of themselves. It's all the little people who will be left holding the bags full of funny money that should worry. (If the bill had a snowball's chance in Hell, that is.)

Investor · Post by **Investor** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:10 am

CaptainKickback wrote:A tip for Imalawman, it is a technique my mother used to use on various adult door-to-door types.

Door bell rings.

Mom opens the doors

Ringers: "Hi there, we're from......"

Mom: "No."

Mom closes door and went on with her life.

That trick works a lot better when you're not trying to get two children, under the age of 3, to bed (or have them in a bath, etc.). I am with lawman on this one - anyone who calls my home or shows up on my doorstep has probably forever lost me as a potential customer/supporter. I think the only Pres. candidate who has called my home thus far (for the 2008 election) is Romney. Luckily, I wasn't planning on voting for him anyway - I plan to write in a vote for Alf or ET, maybe even the Great Gazoo

.

Investor · Post by **Investor** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:42 am

I hope you don't think that 18 USC 486 and 489 exist to protect the peace of mind of the Federal Reserve and the Mint. They can take care of themselves. It's all the little people who will be left holding the bags full of funny money that should worry. (If the bill had a snowball's chance in Hell, that is.)

This is what Paul clearly misses - the intent of the laws he proposes to repeal. The intent is not to thwart counterfeiters, as he seems to think, it is to thwart shysters. It is also to keep our economy from spiraling out of control due to constant exchange rate fluctuations within our own nation.

This whole thing is premised on the false belief of many that backing currency with a precious metal makes it less susceptible to inflation (a quick history lesson in US economics would clear that one up in a hurry). In reality, the value of the dollar is fixed by the market. If I say one hour of my time is worth $X and you say it costs $X+5 to buy your product, we have fixed the value of a dollar. I love when people ask "if there's no gold (or other precious metal) backing the dollar, then what gives it value?" The answer is so painfully simple - what gives it its value is the fact that people are willing to accept it as payment for goods and service; end of story. Setting the value of the dollar to a certain weight of gold does not anchor the dollar and make it inflation-proof, it anchors the price of gold to the dollar and causes superficial increases/decreases in the trading value of the gold. The value of the dollar will be based on the market, and people's bartering power, one way or the other.

The problem with every Tom, Dick and Harry setting up a private mint is that there would be no consistency. There would need to be a floating exchange rate as to each form of currency and chaos would ensue. More importantly, this type of thing is fertile grounds for con-men who can convince the uneducated that the dollar is about to collapse, by stating the fact that there is no gold backing of the currency, or by citing recent market adjustments which have brought our dollar back in line with other world currencies (an adjustment which was inevitable). They can then get their mark to put their hard earned money into their new "inflation-proof" gold/silver backed currency - only to find out they cannot use that currency to purchase anything.

If anyone wants to go into why the recent decline in the value of the dollar, relative to other world currencies, is actually a good thing, start a thread about it - I'll throw my two cents into the mix. If you really think a gold backed currency is less susceptible to inflation, please give some facts to support this proposition. Please do not say "we have inflation, we have no gold backed currency; therefore, a gold backed currency is less susceptible to inflation". The leap in logic is just too great to start a conversation there.

silversopp · Post by **silversopp** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:54 pm

LPC wrote: Like abolishing the Federal Reserve System (and the federal income tax), both of which have little political support and little practicality, the idea that we should invade Iraq in order to try to create a democracy by armed force never had much political support and, as we've already seen, hasn't really worked very well.

But the other two things you describe are different.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve/Income Tax has some political support. At least one Congressman and 100,000 donors to the Ron Paul campaign. Hardly a majority, but there is definite support for such ideas. Should people that don't hold the view of the majority simply stay out of politics?

The Iraq War had tremendous political support after 9/11. Enough support to re-elect Bush as President.

It's a very narrow view to think that only the positions you agree with are practical and have political support.

You seem to be trying to equate crazies on the right with moderates on the left.

No. What I'm pointing out is that what one person views as crazy is considered normal for another person. The majority of the right would view Gore and Hillary both as crazy for their environment/universal healthcare proposals. If you haven't noticed this, just listen to Rush Limbaugh.

How many people on right think that Obama/Clinton are crazy and would be terrible for our country? How many people on the left think that Guiliani and Romney are crazy and would be terrible for our country?

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:05 pm

Interesting article.

tnr.com

Investor · Post by **Investor** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:21 pm

How many people on right think that Obama/Clinton are crazy and would be terrible for our country?

There are different degrees of bad. Despite being the Marxist Revolutionary (Che Guevara) of Quatloos, I consider myself to be pretty conservative (Reagan is the greatest thing to happen to this country in the past century). I don't think Obama/Clinton are the best choice for Pres. but that, despite my conservative views, does not mean I don't find Ron Paul to be much crazier and much more radical than either of them. Yes, the idea of eliminating the IRS and the fed are attractive to a certain sect, but what are their proposals for replacing those things? If a national sales tax or a gold standard currency is among those proposals, those people are trying to kill a fly with a bazooka. To take the most sustainable and successful society in human history and smash it to pieces to start over is just a little extreme, in my opinion. I do not think our current tax system is perfect, but the only perfect system is perfect on paper only - it is socialism and it doesn't work.

Post by **Prof** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:09 pm

There is a difference between controversial and nuts. Compare Limbaugh/Imus, et al. and William F. Buckley/Maureen Dowd.

By the way, if you want an almost mainstream candidate, Huckabee, who is willing to throw in with the nuts, check out his "Christian Reconstructionist" supporters in Houston, Texas (Drudge, today). Welcome to the theocracy!

Post by **Prof** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:12 pm

Demo drags us back on topic:

Greetings from Mexico. Someone want to post this on Q?

Sent via BlackBerry.

-----Original Message-----
From: Liberty Dollar <truth>

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:30:34
To:jj@deathandtaxes.com
Subject: Good news from Liberty Dollar

December 20. 2007
Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters,
As the Holidays approach, I am pleased to share some good news. Yes the dark forfeiture hangs over our head but this is much to cheer about!
We just received a Christmas present from Ron Paul who introduced new legislation that mentions the "Liberty Dollar" and "asset forfeiture" in his "Free Competition in Currency Act" on 13 December 2007. WOW! Thanks Ron. Now available at:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 21307h.htm.
<http>
A recent article in the Evansville Courier & Press headlines: "Business booming after raid". And indeed it is. As announced earlier Liberty Dollar has re-opened as Liberty Numismatics! Maybe it is just Christmas sales but it is good news for the Liberty Dollar. Read all about it at: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/d ... omingafter <http> .
Do you live in New England? Dedicated to the ideals of Liberty? Want to see Ron Paul just before he wins the New Hampshire Primary? Interested in the Liberty Dollar? Please consider coming to the 2008 Liberty Forum <http> January 4-6 in Nashua, New Hampshire. I will give the keynote address on Friday evening, January 4th. US Senator John Sununu is the keynote speaker on Saturday evening and Ron Paul will address all of us on Sunday afternoon. This is sure to be a hoot! Mention Liberty Dollar and code 2008LD for a 10% discount when you register.
Meanwhile, as I have not been arrested… yet… the Arrest Dollar is still available. Believe me… this is a very limited time offer! Please consider supporting the Liberty Dollar by getting a special Silver Liberty that is hallmarked with Handcuffs. Each Arrest Dollar also features my federally registered Mintmark. Available for $30, $20 and $15 each. All the money goes to support the Liberty Dollar.
There you have it. With a bit of luck, we should have more good news before the end of the year. Stay tuned. And please donate… business may be booming… but its costly to defend your right to use gold and silver and get your property back!
Please don't let the government steal your property!
Thank you, thank you, thank you for your support and your donation.
Merry Christmas & Season Greetings to all!
Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect/Editor

Click HERE <http> to be added to future alerts.

Randall · Post by **Randall** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:21 pm

How many people on right think that Obama/Clinton are crazy and would be terrible for our country?

As I point out to my kids when they comment about what a %^&%^&* we have currently in the White House: the country will survive him as it survived, Nixon, Clinton, and everyone else that has warmed the seats in the Oval Office.

Having said that, RP really comes across as a total goofball in most of his proposals.

RyanMcC · Post by **RyanMcC** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:20 pm

silversopp wrote:How many people on right think that Obama/Clinton are crazy and would be terrible for our country?

I wonder why, afterall they were both endorsed by Fidel Castro:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... 4320070828

RyanMcC · Post by **RyanMcC** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:48 pm

CaptainKickback wrote:
RyanMcC wrote:I wonder why, afterall they were both endorsed by Fidel Castro:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... 4320070828
Because Fidel Castro is a half-senile, corrupt, morally-bankrupt, old gas-bag?

Could be, I just assumed Fidel felt Clinton/Obama would be the most likely to bring about a Socialist Utopia in the US. You could be right too though.

Quatloos!

Ron Paul introduces Nothaus law

Ron Paul introduces Nothaus law

Re: Ron Paul introduces Nothaus law