Welcome to a world filled with peculiarities and outrageousness! Public figures like Charlie Sheen and Barney Frank consistently capture our attention with their flamboyant antics, and somehow, society seems to revel in their unpredictable behavior. The more shocking their actions, the more their popularity seems to explode.
Whether it’s Hollywood melodrama or political missteps, audiences can’t seem to get enough. However, these public displays pale in comparison to the grander absurdities we observe in the financial realm. When we shift our focus from the clowns of entertainment to the world of economics, an entirely different landscape reveals itself, one filled with bewildering contradictions.
Take, for instance, the seemingly enlightened decision-making at the Federal Reserve. They operate under the illusion that they can enhance global prosperity by printing endless amounts of money out of thin air. Despite the risk of catastrophic consequences, they are steadfast in their belief that the economy can be restored through the extensive borrowing of dollars. At this moment, they are effectively wagering three generations of wealth on this risky endeavor.
What makes matters even more curious is the Fed’s monopoly within the United States. They are the sole custodians of the U.S. currency, holding the exclusive right to issue legal tender. Astonishingly, the Federal Reserve Note has become America’s most lucrative export. Much like Sheen and Frank, the more outrageous the Fed’s actions regarding the dollar, the more it attracts international lenders.
However, challenging the Fed’s monopoly is another story. Bernard von NotHaus dared to do just that and received a hefty 25-year prison sentence, labeled “a unique form of domestic terrorism.” This isn’t fiction; it actually occurred.
While NotHaus’s decision to mint silver coins branded with dollar signs was certainly controversial, the implications of his indictment offer important lessons. To delve deeper into this troubling case, we present a thought-provoking essay from our friend Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., of LewRockwell.com.
Enjoy,
MN Gordon
Economic Prism
—
**Use the Dollar or Else**
If you search for “a unique form of domestic terrorism,” you will find a story about a man the U.S. government is trying to imprison until his last breath.
What crime did he commit? His so-called “unique form of terrorism” involved minting and selling silver and copper coins. Essentially, he did what countless entrepreneurs have done throughout history: he offered consumers a viable store of value. No one was coerced into making a purchase; he merely responded to market demand.
Who did he harm? No one. Unlike illegal drugs—prohibited by the government to prevent personal harm—these silver coins posed no danger. Instead, they provided options for individuals to manage their finances as they saw fit. NotHaus did not claim his coins were legal tender; he sold them exactly for what they were.
Could these coins function as currency? Absolutely. In fact, anything can serve as currency—shoes, shells, flash drives, or books. The classification of money hinges upon the intentions behind the trade. Are you acquiring something for consumption? It’s not money. Are you acquiring something to barter for other goods? In that case, it possesses money-like qualities.
It’s perfectly reasonable for people to question the future of the paper dollar, prompting many to look for alternatives to safeguard their assets. What NotHaus did was provide an option that may serve as an alternative to the dollar—and for that, he has faced relentless persecution.
Bernard von NotHaus, now 67 years old, has encountered relentless scorn throughout these proceedings. He’s been labeled as a crook, terrorist, and nutcase. Yet, what he did should be celebrated and legally sanctioned in any civilized nation.
A country confident in its currency would not fear competition from alternative forms of money. Conversely, a government relying on a faltering currency will go to great lengths to stifle competition. This is precisely what is unfolding in the case of the so-called Liberty Dollar.
It’s astonishing that there is a lack of discourse on this matter; the assumption is that he is a criminal is seemingly unquestioned by his accusers. Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center noted, “He’s playing on a core idea of the radical right, that evil bankers in the Federal Reserve are ripping you off by controlling the money supply. He very much exists in the world of the anti-government patriot movement.”
What, then, is the interest of the SPLC in this case? This organization claims to combat hate and racism, which ties in with efforts to alleviate poverty. Yet, they intervene in a case where a man is attempting to shield people from financial hardship. Pointing out that the Fed controls the money supply isn’t hateful—it’s a reality acknowledged even by Bernanke himself!
The government’s stance is clear. Citing a Civil War-era law, they assert that it is illegal to compete with the official dollar. Notably, they do not reference the U.S. Constitution, which does not explicitly prohibit such actions. In fact, private coinage has a rich history in America, playing a vital role during westward expansion. Offering coinage services was as commonplace as any other profession.
However, since 1971, when the dollar became completely paper-based, there’s been a persistent belief that its viability requires federal enforcement. This perspective contradicts the principles of freedom. The right to mint coins should be an intrinsic part of a free-market economy. Currency competition is essential, especially in the digital age.
As Seth Lipsky succinctly remarked in the Wall Street Journal, “it’s a loser’s game to suppress private money that is sound in order to protect government-issued money that is unsound.”
Absolutely. While NotHaus operated near the edges of legality—branding his coins with dollar signs and attaching numerical values— the basis for his persecution is flagrant and tyrannical.
Allowing for alternative currencies is not an act of terrorism; it is a step towards monetary reform and an expression of free enterprise within a sector that should never have succumbed entirely to government oversight. Individuals striving to introduce alternatives should be celebrated, not imprisoned, in every nation that cherishes freedom.
Sincerely,
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
for Economic Prism
[Editor’s Note: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.]