> > In the spirit of the Virtual Currency system trading directly with > precious metals would probably be frowned upon. ;-) However, not to > the point that any of its adherents would ever be threatened in any > way, nor sent to jail. Heaven's no! Why send people to jail for simply > exchanging pieces of silver and gold amongst each other. I suspect the > percentage of individuals who would possess vast quantities of > precious metals is likely to be insignificant, particularly when > compared to the entire economic population base. Why get all bent out > of shape with small incidentals! > Around 2005, e-gold was trading around $5,000,000 US equivalent in gold, each day. The Secret Service came after them and told them that had to register with FinCen, but they disagreed. $800,000 and 18 months later, e-gold won the law suit. They were just trading gold, after all, which had been demonetized in 1977. Then 6 months later, the Secret Service came again, this time charging them with aiding child pornography, since they had apparently found someone accepting e-gold for child pornography. So Jackson worked a plea deal and got 6 months house arrest, and they shut down e-gold. All $200 million in gold was accounted for, and the judge said she had trouble sentencing Jackson because he didn't know he was doing anything wrong.
So... some people get bent out of shape on such things. :) > IOW, those who wish to continue to smoke. Go ahead. The Virtual > Currency system was not designed to play the role of mother or father. > In the end everyone is responsible for the maintenance of their own > lungs - to do what they want with them. > Without the threats, I have no moral issue with it. > The only time the VC system might be accused of creating money out of > nothing would be when a participating customer needs an essential > service but doesn't have sufficient credits to pay for them from out > of his personal credit account. >From a practical point, once you separate a person's ability to pay, from the services he receives, then the pricing mechanism loses feedback. In other words, there's nothing to then stop the seller from raising his prices. > Under the VC system, such individuals will still receive the essential > services they desperately need. > Under the VC system, the seller of the essential products will > continue to get paid from CC precisely because he has faithfully > performed a valuable and necessary service that helps/assists others. > Why shouldn't sellers of essential products be paid if they perform > essential services, regardless of who actually pays them? If the service is 'essential', then there is no limit to the price the sellers would charge. > > It is not possible for any type of program to improve the welfare > > > of all individuals, unless those individuals freely agreed to join > > > the program. The best thing that a program intended for society can > > > do, is improve the welfare of some people at the expense of others. > > > > > > All individuals have individual values. I value my family, my > > > friends, my house and car, and my plans for the future, more than I > > > value your family, friends, material items, and plans. So only I > > > know how to best pursue my values. If I choose not to participate > > > in a program, then it's because I don't believe that such a program > > > will help me pursue my values. What is good for you, is not > > > necessarily good for me. > > > > I think you have succinctly expressed the very heart of the > disagreement you seem to have with the Virtual Currency system. The > disagreement strikes me personally as mostly philosophical in nature. > (I hasten to add that philosophical perceptions are not in themselves > good or bad.) Your expressed perception seems to be a popular one that > many adhere to. Many express the opinion that they would prefer to > make all the necessary decisions as to the maintenance of their > "personal welfare", which typically means also taking care of their > loved ones. For some, there seems to be an almost inherent > visceral-like distrust of relinquishing such "decisions" to > organizations typically perceived to be faceless managed > bureaucracies. Because it's not possible for others to decide anything that's in my best interest. They have no idea what I value and to what degree I value them. The only thing that a committee of others can do is throw money at things that 'they' believe are important - and not what those who receive such money believe - and to the detriment of those from whom they take the money for their good intentions. > > To choose not to help others, because it isn't necessarily good for > one’s own immediate concerns is a choice we all struggle with, such as > every time we go past the ringer for a Salvation Army bucket on our > way out of the grocery store. We constantly ponder: Do we put our > spare change in the bucket, or do we simply pocket the pieces of > silver and get on with the rest of our personal business. It is > perfectly understandable as well as appropriate that you would value > taking care of your family, your friends, house, car, and plans for > the future over my own personal values, or anyone else's for that > matter. It's always been my motto that one must first take care of > one's own back yard before they are in position to help others take > care of theirs. Choosing to help others can also be a personal value. Craig
