actual game. As he was much stronger than I, it would have been
presumptuous of me to challenge him to a game.
I do have a few friends who have offshore deposits in Costa Rica. I fear
that their money may have been lost because of the US Governments
crackdown. They do not know yet.
It is of course perfectly legal to have deposits in Costa Rica. The
Libertarians should adopt this as an issue.
I wonder what is the difference between this organization and PayPal. The
only difference I can see it is conducts business offshore. If the US
Government were to seize all PayPal accounts, which seems likely ti be
next, it would be a major financial crisis.
Sam Sloan
Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued guidelines March 18, 2013, which although muddled, did state that money exchangers (presumably including those serving US citizens)are subject to registration and reporting rules. Mt.Gox felt the Fed's straight forward heavy hand on lack of registrations. Liberty Reserve a little more complicated, even though some of its business could be compared to Mt.Gox's convertible virtual currency -- in my humble opinion the real target of the Fed's sudden whirlwind of activity. Convertible virtual currency challenges the entire house of cards that Treasury and the Federal Reserve built, via virtual currency's anonymity which of course enables tax avoidance, moving funds generated by non-legal activity, and funding what some folks might not want funded.
If we view the the Libertarian issue as Treasury issuing worthless funny money and the Federal Reserve serving as the enabler for all kinds of social engineering, I agree. The closing of Liberty Reserve is another matter. Anyone is free to break any rules they want, out of necessity or out of protest, but just don't cry foul when caught.
Marcy
Marcy,
Don't cry foul when caught? If crying foul seems like the best means of defense or seeking redress at a particular point in time, why not? If you're arrested when there was no actual crime committed, you were fouled! We shouldn't blame the victims.
Let's instead turn it around and say, "If you build a financial house of cards based on issuing worthless funny money to enable government engineering, don't cry foul (aka "illegal!") when someone comes up with a creative work-around." Or -- "Treasury is able to enact any regulations they want, out of malice or out of greed, but just don't cry foul when people make you into a poster child for economic collapse and your reputation and career are ruined."
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
"Unjust laws deserve to be broken"
-Dr. Martin Luther King
200,000 US registered users and 800.000 foreign registered users are considered "acceptable collateral damage" in this attack, pursuant to the Patriot act.
"According to Forex Magnates, a specialized forex news service, Liberty Reserve was 'the leading payment channel for traders in emerging and frontier markets' ".
The term "crying foul" hardly belongs in this conversation about yet another act of war, committed by the the dictators of global socialism.
The fouls is on us, the American people for the misconduct and betrayal by our servants and the wrongful attack on 200,000 of our fellows. How far is this from the collateral murder of the journalists and aide-workers, with the subsequent arrest of Bradley Manning?
The "economics crimes" unit of the DOJ is modeled from the same devices of the Communist Chinese and Soviets. This is an entirely different matter the the issues of our currency. This is a matter of acts of war to enforce the issue of our currency.
Now there are a million more people wrongfully damaged in the name of the American people. 800,000 foreigners now on the "watch list" for the likely retaliation from having their lives destroyed.
How much will that cost us? Will it be another trillion dollars, or more in another gargantuan scam by the dictators?
Hi Starchild,
You and I could discuss this point until the cows come home! My position has not changed in the 10 year you have known me -- you do the crime, you do the time. Unless a jury of your peers exercise their rights in jury nullification, or otherwise refuse to convict you for whatever reason.
Certainly, if accused of a crime existing in the present and real world, one can indeed bring up all kinds of stuff, such as the injustice of a law, or that other people are doing even more harm, or whatever might help sway either the accusers or sway a jury. If that is what you mean by "the best means of defense," I completely agree, especially if the defense has no legal leg to stand on in the present and real world.
All this does not preclude any of us from bringing cogent, fact based arguments before the public in an effort to eliminate or modify laws which we find unjust, harmful, or stupid.
My point has always been that by glossing over or totally ignoring facts (Liberty Reserve would attract those seeking tax avoidance, which would in turn put a dent on homeless programs, health care for all, public housing, wars to protect oil, and the other basic necessities of the house of cards of which I spoke), we weaken our ability to effectively find ways to eliminate the laws we would all be better without.
Marcy
As I said in my earlier response to Starchild's post, we weaken our ability to effectively help remove laws on the books in the present and real world by limiting ourselves to issuing sound bites (or carrying signs) instead of recognizing all the issues involved in a situation and providing cogent and fact-based arguments.
Crying foul does seem to be a habit of libertarians; and we should not sweep that habit under any carpets.
Marcy