Legislator says the state needs its own currency

I agree 100% that this is an example of non-objective law, as we understand it. However, it is an example of objective law as Ayn Rand understood it:

U.S. Code said:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 25 > § 486
§ 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The language of the law is perfectly clear. Von NotHaus was perfectly cognizant of his actions and their consequences. Like others here, no doubt, I enjoy the opportunity to study forms of private money.

Silver art bars in a variety of sizes have been popular for over 40 years. In the 19th century, the "silver jeton" celebrated all manner of private and public affairs, from Lloyds Insurance Offices to cattle shows.

The Norfed "Liberty Dollar" crossed a bright line.

Not onlly did they look like the commemorative silver coins of the USA, but Von NotHaus promoted them as money qua money.

I agree 100% that the law is wrong, but, if you can just disobey any law you do not like, then you endorse anarchy. The way to fix a problem is to change the law by the constitutional process.

Post 1

Saturday, March 19, 2011 - 6:48pm

Michael, referring to that statute, you wrote, "...this is an example of non-objective law, as we understand it. However, it is an example of objective law as Ayn Rand understood it:

U.S. Code said:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 25 > § 486
§ 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

I don't understand. Is this a dig of some sort at Rand? Are you implying she would agree with this law?

It is objective as opposed to subjective. It is fairly unequivocal, unambiguous and appears to apply to everyone and probably meets a number of the criteria of objective law, but it is not based upon individual rights. Good law needs to be objective, consistent with the constitutional AND based upon individual rights. Clearly this law violates individual rights and Rand would not have supported it.
-----------------

From the article: “Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,”

I wonder if she is capable of breaking down how currency of this country is harmed by the peaceful exchange of an alternative? I especially wonder if she can do so without describing some need of the country to rob its citizens of the stored value in the currency they hold by purposely debasing that currency? How does she imagine that debasing the currency, as the government is doing, is not a 'clear and present' danger to the economic stability of this country?

Post 2

Saturday, March 19, 2011 - 7:08pm

From the article: “Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” she added. “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.”

What a preposterous statement! The U.S. Attorney is accusing Nothaus of domestic terrorism for producing silver coins to be used as a medium of exchange. Unbelievable!

Incidentally, I have one of those coins. Bought it for $20. It's now worth $35.

The article also quotes the Constitution: "Article I, section 8, clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish and preserve a uniform standard of value and to insure a singular monetary system for all purchases and debts in the United States, public and private. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money which is not issued under its own authority in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of all citizens of the nation."

Like our funny money IS benefiting all citizens of the nation! And in fact, federal reserve notes are not the money authorized under the Constitution in the first place. These notes, which originally said, "Pay to the bearer on demand the sum of _____." were intended simply as claims to the real money, which was gold and silver coins.

"It is a violation of federal law for individuals, such as von NotHaus, or organizations, such as NORFED, to create private coin or currency systems to compete with the official coinage and currency of the United States."

Well, as I say, federal reserve notes never were "the official coinage and currency of the United States"; gold and silver coins were. Besides, if people agree to accept gold and silver as money and no fraud is involved in their use as a medium of exchange, wouldn't THAT be to the benefit of U.S. citizens?

And then there's this: "Von NotHaus, who remains free on bond, faces a sentence of up to 15 years’ imprisonment on count two of the indictment and a fine of not more than $250,000. Von NotHaus faces a prison sentence of five years and fines of $250,000 on both counts one and three. In addition, the United States is seeking the forfeiture of approximately 16,000 pounds of Liberty Dollar coins and precious metals, currently valued at nearly $7 million. The forfeiture trial, which began today before United States District Court Judge Richard Voorhees, will resume on April 4, 2011 in the federal courthouse in Statesville. Judge Voorhees has not yet set a date for the sentencing of von NotHaus."

So the government is going to abscond with all of his silver coins worth nearly $7 million as punishment for his producing and acquiring them. Don't you just love the honesty and integrity of our government?

Post 3

Saturday, March 19, 2011 - 9:03pm

"I agree 100% that the law is wrong, but, if you can just disobey any law you do not like, then you endorse anarchy. The way to fix a problem is to change the law by the constitutional process."

How is breaking a bad law necessarily endorsing anarchy? One does something against the law in order to have freedom in a way that would be possible in one's desired miniarchy. If anything, it could be considered revolutionist not anarchist.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/19, 9:03pm)

Post 4

Sunday, March 20, 2011 - 3:04am

I agree 100% that Von Nothaus was prosecuted for political reasons. It is disturbing that there is no defense fund for him. That - contrasted with Japan - suggests the limits to individualism. You are out there on your own: all the profits are yours because all the risks are, too.

On my blog (as on my website before) I explain why money is speech. (We just passed the Ides of March. M. Junius Brutus issued his own Ides of March coin. Many more examples are easy to find.) The prosecutor's statements must be understood as baloney for the press. Those people always talk that way, controlling the media perceptions. It is what they do, even more than going to court. Talk of "terrorism" however raises deeper concerns, and should. Eventually, like "organized crime" or "gang activity" the scary slang will lose its impact.

We do make our own tokens, medals, art bars and art rounds.

This is from Silvertowne,.
But these are only commemoratve medals, a form of art.

In fact, you can make your own paper. Writing a check is a perfect example of that.
The successful Ithaca Time Dollars go back to 1991. I helped create Traverse City Bay Bucks.

Images of the Bay Bucks

I agree 100% that the law is wrong. But von Nothaus created and promoted his Norfed silver art rounds as coined money qua coined money. It is like evading income tax. The law is wrong, but we still obey it. If you do not like a law, you have the opportunity to change it through the democratic process.

As for Ayn Rand's understanding or lack of it, I point to the scene in Atlas Shrugged where John Galt pays Dagny Taggart with a $5 gold coin stamped "Liberty" and "United States of America." She asks on whose authority he issued it. He replies that it says whose right on the coin. Of course, he had no such authority. Ayn Rand only had not thought through the problem.

Realize that Hayek only wrote The Denationalisation of Money in 1974. This all seems obvious to us today. It was not so clear. I heard a Ron Paul supporter bashing the FRB who claimed that only the government has the right to create money. I am only pointing out that not everyone who "likes" gold and silver understands this.

There is a lot to this and von Nothaus chose to take the federal government on head-on. He may win on appeal. I believe that he should. I believe that the plethora of silver art rounds simply defeats this bad law which confuses a competing coinage with counterfeiting. The prosecutor confused coins with currency. The law alllows you create your own paper money. We do this every time we write a check. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such fiduciary media today. But the prosecutor is cloaked in her own ignorance.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/20, 3:34am)

Post 5

Sunday, March 20, 2011 - 11:38am

Michael wrote,

I agree 100% that this is an example of non-objective law, as we understand it. However, it is an example of objective law as Ayn Rand understood it.

How can it be both?? This is an Objectivist website. "We" agree with Rand on what is and is not "objective law." In any case, the "law" von Nothaus was convicted of breaking is not only not objective, it makes no sense to begin with. The article states that von Nothaus "was found guilty by a jury in Statesville, North Carolina, of making coins resembling and similar to United States coins . . ."

Oh, give me a break! What U.S. coin that is currently being used as money does the Liberty Dollar resemble? A penny, a nickel, a dime, a quarter or a half dollar? There is no passing resemblance whatsoever to any of these coins.

". . . of issuing, passing, selling, and possessing Liberty Dollar coins; of issuing and passing Liberty Dollar coins intended for use as current money; and of conspiracy against the United States."

If people want to accept his coins in trade, they have a perfect right to. To be sure, the coins are not legal tender, but there was no suggestion that they had to be accepted in payment for all debts public and private. Furthermore, money, by definition, is a commonly accepted medium of exchange. His coins were certainly not commonly accepted as a medium of exchange within the United States. Exchanging them in trade for goods and services could at best be considered a form of barter. Since when has barter been illegal?

If the concern was that he was involved in some form of counterfeiting, that can be dismissed out of hand, as he was not trying to pass these coins off as the equivalent of U.S. currency. Besides, counterfeiting is a form of fraud. There was no fraud in the buying and selling of the Liberty Dollar. People knew exactly what they were getting.

I agree 100% that the law is wrong, but, if you can just disobey any law you do not like, then you endorse anarchy. The way to fix a problem is to change the law by the constitutional process.

But he didn't break any law!!! This prosecution was the equivalent of a kangaroo court. He was convicted on trumped up charges, e.g., of making coins "resembling" U.S. coins, of "conspiracy against the United States," and of engaging in "domestic terrorism."

Besides, no one is morally obligated to obey every law that is on the books. Of course, if you disobey a law, then you cannot legally object to being prosecuted. But in this case, even given the current laws, the prosecution of Nothaus was a travesty of justice, one which served simply as an excuse to steal $7 million from an innocent man. No matter how you cut it, this was a monumental disgrace. Where are the protests against this exhibition of kleptocracy that is being shoved in the faces of the American people?!? Wake up Americans! Your government is becoming the equivalent of a banana republic!

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/20, 1:37pm)

Post 6

Sunday, March 20, 2011 - 10:36pm

I agree 100% that the law is wrong, but, if you can just disobey any law you do not like, then you endorse anarchy. The way to fix a problem is to change the law by the constitutional process.

The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to prohibit competing forms of currency, based on the wording, SCOTUS decisions be damned:

The sole powers on this topic granted the federal government, from Article I, Section 8:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

These coins do not attempt to counterfeit any existing coinage issued by the federal government -- they can easily be distinguished from that currency.

The Constitutional wording nowhere grants the federal government a monopoly power to make coins, only the right to prevent people from making exact copies of their currency (counterfeiting).

Thus, both the law, and the enforcement thereof, and the conviction of this person, are all unconstitutional infringements of the person's rights.

Post 7

Monday, March 21, 2011 - 4:50am

Von Nothaus has been engaged in this for over a decade, since 1998. He knew what the law was and he chose to break it. Doing that, and winning an appeal that strikes down the law on constitutional grounds is one of the paths available. Perhaps that is his intention. If so, I am dismayed that he had no support mechanism in place. The last thing that Norfed did before being busted was to create the RON PAUL DOLLAR. Where are Congressman Paul and Senator Paul now?

WD:
MEM I agree 100% that this is an example of non-objective law, as we understand it. However, it is an example of objective law as Ayn Rand understood it.
How can it be both?? This is an Objectivist website. "We" agree with Rand on what is and is not "objective law." In any case, the "law" von Nothaus was convicted of breaking is not only not objective ...

Bill, please make the time to listen to this interview with Ayn Rand. It runs about 30 minutes. She explains her theory of objective law. She says that Roman law was objective - however flawed - because it was publicly stated and uniformly enforced.

Our understanding as Objectivists goes beyond that. For us, objective law protects objective rights. Clearly, this law violates those rights. But it is not a secret law and it is not capriciously enforced. If you follow this link tp the US Mint website, you will see that Norfed has been listed along with 9/11 commemoratives from the Northern Mariannas Trust and other non-governmental look-alikes. They received clear warning from the government years ago. On the other hand, not listed are the very many silver art bars and rounds that are popular and common among numismatists with a patriotic interest in hard money, and patriots with an interest in numismatics.

As for whether or not Norfed dollars (called dollars and marketed as a currency system) "look like" US coins it is for a reasonable man - 12 of them - to decide. I can tell you that when the 50 State Quarter program was launched, I got calls from people who found "a coin that looks like an American quarter." Coins are semata. They carry messages, both in words and pictures, including the arrangements of spaces that announce their meaning and intention. You don't need to see the Red Star to know a MiG when you see one. Design style is everything. At the US Mint website or with a recent Red Book, look at the array of modern (post 1987) commemorative coins and decide for yourself how closely Norfed "dollars" (not ounces or ducats or whatever) mimic US Mint products.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/21, 5:40am)

Post 8

Monday, March 21, 2011 - 5:04am

JH: The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to prohibit competing forms of currency ... The Constitutional wording nowhere grants the federal government a monopoly power to make coins, only the right ....

Jim, I agree that USC 18 Part I Ch25 § 486 is morally wrong because it exceeds the proper bounds of protecting US currency from from counterfeiting.

Realize that in US history, laws like this have been passed and ignored at least three times. The last time put an end to "company store" money used by coal mines. The courts ruled that American workers have the right to be paid in American money. And still, we have a myriad of silver art rounds and art bars.

I agree also that the press release from the prosecutors is a tossed salad of allegations. We should look at the actual indictment and the actual findings of the jury. Prosecutors will say anything for the press. I went around on this for articles I wrote back in the 1990s about "hackers" who allegedly stole E911 "programs" that threatened the nation's emergency response system. What they downloaded was a one-page memo, sold for $25 as hardcopy by BellSouth. Meanwhile the prosecutors were making bold statements for the press. So, again, if you have the bill of indictment or the jury findings, then we can discuss that. Otherwise, we are debating the soundbites of politicians.

Post 9

Monday, March 21, 2011 - 8:38am

News Item :

Legislator says the state needs its own currency

RALEIGH -- Cautioning that the federal dollars in your wallet could soon be little more than green paper backed by broken promises, state Rep. Glen Bradley wants North Carolina to issue its own legal tender backed by silver and gold.

Post 10

Monday, March 21, 2011 - 12:38pm

Michael,

Thanks for the link to Ayn Rand's recorded Q&A on objective law.

Referring to it, you said, "She explains her theory of objective law. She says that Roman law was objective - however flawed - because it was publicly stated and uniformly enforced. Our understanding as Objectivists goes beyond that. For us, objective law protects objective rights."

Much of what she said isn't "her theory" but has been written about for centuries.

As an aside, I believe that objective law is much older than Roman law. That is the only thing she said that I disagreed with. I believe that published laws date back to Mesopotamia and as early as 2350 BC. A number of law-givers created written laws that showed substantial elements of objective law (e.g., Code of Urukagina, Code of Ur-Nammu, Code of Hammurabi).

The beginnings of the stay-in-one-place kind of agriculture which gave rise to people being able to live together in larger groups (and to specialize) marked the shift away from a solely nomadic or hunter/gather limitation and marked the beginning of civilization. That would be the time in history where a more formal understanding of social rules were needed and where the need for law arose.

Recognition of some kind of legal property rights would start back then to create the stability needed for farming that allows people to stay in the same place. It is the density of population that is made possible by the invention of agriculture techniques and this gives rise to an increased need for law. To make law stable and practical required writing. So, based upon that we are talking about somewhere after about 8,000 BC for Mesopotamia (I don't know anything about Far Eastern cultures).

Rand was correct to separate objective law from Objectivist law. They are two separate things. The first is a requirement to function as law (even if it is bad law). If a law can be read and understood so that one could reasonably predict how it would be applied to some specified act, and if that prediction of how it would be applied to that act matches how it is actually enforced, then it is objective law.

To be objective law is to be law that can be understood and enforced as laws not as whims of rulers. To be objective means it will not contain contradictions (like anti-trust laws do), or equivocations, vagueness, or ambiguity of wording. Objective law requires and specifies logical rules for fact-based evidence. If it can't be known in advance what acts would be illegal, or how one would determine that (e.g., elements of the law and rules of evidence) then it is a defective law. (She mentions that law can never be perfect that it is a process of continual improvement.)

The shift from objective law to Objectivist law comes from anchoring the principles of objective law on the moral foundation of individual rights. It is possible to have objective laws that violate individual rights. Rand was using the terms correctly.

Post 11

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 - 5:56am

Steve, thanks for the citations to the early legal codes. I did not know about Ur-Nammu and Urukagina. I followed up on those.

Objective law requires uniform enforcement. That does not mean absolutism. Context matters, which is why when you are pulled over for speeding, you might get a warning rather than a citation. But William Dwyer cannot be alone in wondering why Norfed was prosecuted when other American-coin-like silver rounds are known. Above, in Reply #4, I posted an illustration of a Non-Morgan Dollar. I went looking for the Engelhard Prospector who looks so much like the 1925 California Commemorative Prospector. But they are unalike in portrayal; and the reverses are different.

I believe that this was a politically motivated.
See this discussion here on RoR about "Regional Currencies." In post #16, I discuss the Norfed Raid.

There is a lot of latitude. Recently, the US Mint enforced its copyright on its "America the Beautiful" logo. In the past, such imagery was in the public domain. One exception was the Sacagawea Dollar. The design belongs to Glenna Goodacre who only licenses it to the Mint.

Also, there is a long history of "evasion coinage" that was important to our commerce. To not be an issue of the crown, a coin only had to have a different image or motto and many such coppers are known. In fact, some colonial evasions are known to circulated in the Appalachians into the 1830s. During both the "Hard Times" of the Jacksonian Era and the Civil War, some tokens had "NOT ONE CENT" as in "Millions for Defense / NOT ONE CENT / For Tribute". But many others simply avoided any claim to value and then just circulated as ad hoc cents to meet the needs of the times.

It would be interesting to read Von Nothaus's defense. Did his lawyer just follow a legalistic argument, or did he make the broader, wider, and stronger moral case. After all, the law does conflate two different things: counterfeiting and creating a currency. Counterfeiting is covered elsewhere in detail.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 25 > § 474
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 25 > § 481
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 25 > § 491
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 25 > § 509
... just for openers...

The power given to Congress in Article I Section 8
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
is a limited power because the States have the right to make their own gold and silver coins be money. So the prosecutors were just blowing sunshine with their statements to the press. Has anyone found any statements from Von Nothaus or his attorneys?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/22, 5:58am)

Post 12

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 - 11:25am

Michael,

As soon as we had permanent settlements with fairly large populations and a degree of specialization, a code of law would be a very likely next step - and if they had a written language, it would be put in writing. I'm sure that the first law codes came into being much earlier than Ur-Nammu or Urukagina, but history only knows of those things we still have remnents of.
----------------

You wrote, "Objective law requires uniform enforcement. That does not mean absolutism. Context matters, which is why when you are pulled over for speeding, you might get a warning rather than a citation.

I agree with both points - that objective law should be uniformly enforced, and that uniform enforcement permits sensitivity to context. Clearly if too much lattitude in enforcement appears it becomes subjective law, and the purpose for the minor degree of latitude in enforcement is to fit the law to the individual circumstances in the fashion that best serves the spirit of the law. If an instance of latitude is based upon whim or corruption or hidden agenda, that is a form of subjectivity due to the motivation of enforcement. Too much or too little latitude, or using the enforcement for personal ends are all forms of subjectivity.
-----------------

I agree that Norfed's prosecution was politically motivated, and evil. Our country has transitioned over the decades to having a high degree of subjectivity, most recently in the way the laws are written - now they don't even bother to disguise how badly they are written (e.g., ObamaCare). They have been subjectively enforced on and off but they once maintained the form for appearances sake - not they don't seem to care if what they are doing is visible. It feels like a watershed decade is ahead of us in this area - the constitution, which is the anchor - had been very slowly dragging for a hundred years, suddenly no longer even slows our drift and we'll either reset it and start reclaiming objective law - relearning that aspect of our culture - or slip the anchor line altogether, and subjectivity will be all.
------------------

There should be strict limits on what government is permitted to copyright or patent. There is something offensive about taking tax dollars from people to create a product that the government then turns around and tells the very people who paid for it that they can't use it. But, it is critical that a coin or paper note identify the issuer in a way that avoids mistaken identity. I wouldn't want to accept a coin, thinking it was minted by x, when in fact it was not. That is the only degree to which the government should be allowed to interfer with private minting or printing (actual or defacto counterfiting - and that is no longer an issue if the government were to get out of the money business).

Post 13

Monday, April 4, 2011 - 1:27pm