Talk:Liberty dollar (private currency)/Archive 2

Inflation-proof

The Liberty Dollar prevents monetary inflation - unless there is a huge new silver find. The confusion is, I think, verbal. In terms of consumer price inflation the LD is not inflation proof. In terms of monetary inflation it is inflation proof.

One thing that makes the current article a little confusing is the obfuscation of the fact that the value of the LD is based on silver. Not US dollars. The whole claim about the LD not being backed is a result of ignoring this fact of silver backing. It was never intended to be backed in any manner by US dollars - the whole point is to provide a hard money alternative to fiat money.

Quite right. People should not, when they see "$20" on the LDs face, think that means 20 US dollar Federal Reserve Notes, any more than they should think a 20 dollar Canadian, Austrialian, Hong Kong, or Bahamian bill is worth a 20 US Dollar Federal Reserve Note. It is its own monetary unit.69.173.98.243 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... but... perhaps it would help if they did not use the "$", the picture of Ms. Liberty, the words "USA" and... without bringing too much attention to the literacy of the US "Trust in God" vs. "In God we Trust" (which as an atheist, I find a bit disturbing after several hundred years). The current Liberty Dollar looks almost exactly like the one made by the US Mint in the 20s. Keep in mind, I'm all for the basic concept of created an exchange system based on something tangible (like Silver). In fact I vote we build it on top of nuclear waste, then we would finally have some group that WANTs to hoard the stuff, and will watch it like a hawk. It would simply have been better had they made a Unique looking device (I mean the face, not the shape, since coins are cool since they travel in pockets well), sized them the same as American money in fact, since then all those peripherals like coin counters will work.

In fact, I would suggest it simply be the faces of "really" great people...like scientists, and that the "number" be something more like an SI number.... So a silver coin might simply be Ag 31 (which is Silver, and about one ounce, which is about 31 grams).

Why make another level of obfuscation? (sorry for this rant like long post, this is also where I decided to learn how to post in Wiki discussion... now to see if the 4 tildes words : ) VonWolfsheild (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Claims

Note: Alledging FRAUD is libelous. Since most of these allegations are ignorant and unsupported, its unwise to leave the term "Fraud" in the title.

1. Silver is not an inflation proof store of value. In fact, Silver has lost, inflation adjusted 80% of its value since 1982. An inflation proof instrument, for example the inflation adjusted bonds sold by the US government, is linked, not to some commodity, but to an inflation index (such as the CPI). The best one can say is that Liberty Dollars represent a "hedge" against inflation, but given that one is paying a 30% premium to get in, well, let's just say that even the worst mutual funds don't charge that much of a load.

Silver has lost value because the US government has sold off billions of ounces of silver stocks it once held. This suppressed prices significantly, and the elimination of the silver US dollar eliminated a major demand on silver supplies: the US Mint.

2. The article rumbles about "submitted to the Treasury" -- that was to determine if it violated 18 USC 3056 - in being an counterfeit instrument. To say the money is not a "counterfeit US dollar" is not to say that it is a good idea.

Whether its a good idea or not is in the eye of the consumer. Let the people decide.

3. The "second largest currency" is bunk 'um. There are various corporate scrips in circulation, many of them are much more widely used than Liberty Dollars, including various air miles.

Air miles are indeed a major pseudocurrency, but you can't really take your air miles down to the corner store and plop them on the counter, now, can you?

4. The history of the specie backing of US notes is similarly bunk 'um. For internal use, the 1933 act which ended the gold standard was the end of the story of alternate currency backings for all but a very limited class of notes - the Silver Certificates were still redeemable in silver until 1969, but this was a tiny fraction of the money supply.

National governments retained a gold standard as a standard of international exchange up until the 1970's (that was the point of the Bretton Woods Agreement), but specie backing of US notes goes back to the revolutionary war, when the fiat Continental Dollar was near worthless until it became backed by the donations of Cuban aristocrats wives and the French government. It was the horrendous experience of the Continental that led the framers to enshrine the admonition against using anything but gold and silver as a tender, and resulted in the Coinage Act. The history of fiat money is much more scandalous than that of metal backed money.

5. The article falsely implies that the currency is being sold at a discount. In fact, it is being sold at a considerable mark up: silver is being quoted at 7 dollars an ounce, and the notes are worth 1/10 of an ounce per dollar. This is about the same mark up on specie that the People's Republic of China charges its citizens, and is a very bad deal.

The original Coinage Act specced 0.78 oz per silver dollar, but the government paid only $0.90/oz for silver ingot. Your reliance on the spot price is dishonest, because no consumers ever actually get to pay that price unless they buy significant quantities at once.

6. It is notable and encyclopediac - in the sense that fan cruft or software products are, but the claims made in this article which clearly violate NPOV and correct use of sources.

Stirling Newberry 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

And your claims aren't?69.173.98.243 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

1: Mr. Newberry can claim silver has "lost" 80% since the early 80's because there was a huge abnormal spike in its dollar price at that time. The fact is that in the larger pattern, silver's dollar price has been rising relative to inflation ever since the Fed started taking it out of our money supply. Others like Mr. Newberry mistake Liberty Dollars for an investment in silver and compare it to things like mutual funds or hedges. Silver inflates and deflates, and fluctuates in price, but the inflation that Liberty Dollars are "proof" of is the inflation of the US Dollar, which has lost well over 90% of its value ever since the gold and silver standards were discarded. It is a mistake to call the Liberty Dollar a bad investment because it isn't meant to be an investment at all.

Which means it isn't "inflation proof". Worse still, there have been two other massive silver crashes in US history, from 1919 to 1933 and from 1864 to 1890. In each case silver lost ovr 80% of its value. Measured in relation to gold, silver has lost 80% of its value over the last 150 years. Which if you are a true gold bug is the only real measure. Stirling Newberry 22:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

2: To point out that the Liberty Dollar is a crappy way to buy bullion isn't to say that using it is a bad idea, either.

What, exactly, makes it a good idea? Paying 30% seigniorage to a private bank, and have to "use it or lose it"?

4: Your version of the history sounds similar enough. If we care about getting the history right, then let's get it right. The important point is that our economy was once one of silver and gold, and now it is fiat, based only on debt. NORFED doesn't like that and is trying to evangelize for its cause.

The US Dollar isn't a fiat currency, because the US government has assets - such as land - to back the currency with. The "fiat currency" view is held by an influential group of conservative economists (including Greenspan) but it is far from the majority view in mainstream economics. And the Liberty Dollar is also a fiat currency, since it isn't fully convertible. It's acceptable by the grace of the contracting parties, has no deeply liquid market (try selling them on the open market, they'll pay a discount to the silver in them).

Those assets can only be considered "backing" the currency if I can trade in dollars for those assets on demand. Exactly how many square-inches of swampland back my federal reserve notes? As for the Liberty Dollar, I can redeem a Liberty Dollar "warehouse receipt" for an exact amount of silver on demand... that is what is meant by "backing." And I was under the assumption "fiat currency" meant people are required by law to accept the currency for "all debts, public and private." Show me a place where refusing to accept Liberty Dollars in payment of a debt is illegal, and I'll believe your claim that Libertys are a sort of "fiat currency."

5: Mistaking the Liberty Dollar for an investment in bullion has tripped up Mr. Newberry again. The currency IS being sold at a discount to Associates. A discount of the face value. This is done to make it compelling to spend into circulation and to purchase more. The profit for users doesn't come from becoming a silver investor, it comes from using an alternative currency that you can get for a price lower than its face value.

In short, it's NORFED is already debasing its coinage, and states that if it wants to it will debase it again by "doubling the base", that is doubling the number of liberty dollars it prints per ounce of silver. Looked at from a monetary historical point of view, NORFED is doing what governments routinely did in hard currency eras - debase coins, sell at a huge premium over base metal and tell people that it was for the good of the country. The article should probably be deleted as advertisement, but I've changed it to debunk the overtly fraudulent claims (only an unshorn sucker pays retail for silver eagles.) Stirling Newberry 22:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The important thing to remember about the Liberty Dollar is that it is intended as a currency and tool of commerce rather than as mere bullion. It is meant to be a mirror to the dollar, to expose the inflation game that all fiat currencies play and hopefully educate US citizens.

Sounds POV to me. It's also false based on the material on their website - it's a silver coin sold at a huge mark up, with a tax, I mean fee, to keep it.

Its price is what it is relative to raw bullion in order to give it more stability over time. Americans aren't used to dealing with fluctuating values of competing currencies like Europeans are/were, so the ALD accomodates that. The only reason silver is involved at all is because it is a convenient commodity to back the currency with. By attaching the ALD to a more fixed standard, with strict rules governing any fluctuation of its own value, NORFED wants to expose what it considers the erratic and inflationary nature of the fiat US Dollar.

Nonsense, it is priced what it is so that NORFED can make seigniorage. If they were doing a public service they could set up traveller's checks payable in gold or silver on demand. If the claim is that NORFED is producing a backed currency, they fail the basic tests of full convertibility and face value close to the face value of the metal. Stirling Newberry 22:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The word is Fraud

The "claims made by NORFED" that were the second paragraph of the article are straw men. They represent what the poster deemed to be, in his opinion, good characteristics of money, rather than what NORFED actually claimed. The markup is already noted in the article. This is not a place for your other opinions about money, such as your opinion on the suitability of buying Liberty Dollars. Readers can make that decision themselves.

If you want to add data about the markup that any reasonable person (in your opinion) would see as evidence against the Liberty Dollar, but that those who agree with the Liberty Dollar will agree is true, fine; I don't think they're trying to hide the fees. If you want to make explicitly opinionated commentary based on those facts because you're afraid the reader might not come to your conclusion, that is not fine. Everything you opined on was already in the article, as far as I can see (warehousing fees, markup, etc.). — 131.230.133.185 20:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The article previsously made a number of claims about the U.S. monetary system, so there is a precedent for including opinions about money (so long as they are relevant to the topic). As for hiding the fees, can you point me to a webpage where they clearly spell them out? I've searched for information on the fees, "exchange rates", etc, and can't find much. Thanks -Willmcw 23:31, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Because this article is about NORFED (which redirects here) and its Liberty Dollars, I would expect their views to be listed here. If you believe that the views should be more explicitly labelled theirs rather than Wikipedia's, fine. I agree with making the article more NPOV in that manner. That does not mean that the article can be toned to support other people's views. The overriding policy on Wikipedia is NPOV, not "can we somehow point to something done wrong previously so that we can continue it in a slightly different way".

Mentioning controversies, even new ones that may have been added in the newer version, about their listed views is fine. Tinting the entire article into an opinion piece is completely unacceptable.

When I said that I don't think they were intending to hide them, I meant here (see the article's earlier text for a proof of that); expecting a dealer (of anything, not just coins) to list on their website every single thing someone might find objectionable about their product isn't realistic.

For your review, here is the policy the newer version violates: "...assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves" — from the NPOV policy. — 131.230.133.185 23:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added back some of the claims that you put in, with some qualifications. You are generally right, all the POVs need to be represented. Did you find a reference for their fee schedule? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

If, by schedule, you mean the after five year fees, I've only found the current article reference to the contract text, which I've verified on an actual warehouse certificate. — 131.230.133.185 02:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I really mean any and all fees, commissions, shipping charges, exchanges rates, or whatever else has a financial impact. Since the buyer of LDs is essentially buying silver, is there a sales tax? Also, while I've got your attention, do you know if NORFED accepts LDs in payment for services? For example they have a mandatory class for new RCOs that costs $200. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate?

I hereby encourage those who believe factually inaccurate information in this article to specify what section and/or statement(s) is inaccurate. Thane Eichenauer 07:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The section above, #Fraudulent claims, followed the placement of the "factual accuracy" tag. I'm not sure if all of his question were ever answered. -Willmcw 08:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

PS: I wouldn't object to removing the tags. I think the article is reasonably good. -Willmcw 08:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please pardon my newbie approach to this. I have never before edited a Wiki entry and am not sure whether or not I am doing it correctly. If these points need to be moved or edited please do so.

>I really mean any and all fees, commissions, shipping charges, exchanges rates, or whatever else >has a financial impact. Since the buyer of LDs is essentially buying silver, is there a sales tax? >Also, while I've got your attention, do you know if NORFED accepts LDs in payment for services? For >example they have a mandatory class for new RCOs that costs $200. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:16, July 25, >2005 (UTC)

The current NORFED exchange rate is prominently featured at the top right hand corner of the index page. Everything else you are mentioning is incidental and not necessarily part and parcel of using the Liberty Dollar, especially the "RCO opportunity." The demurrage on paper certificates applies only to paper certificates and represents a legitimate cost of storage and third-party auditing of the reserves to which the paper certificates represent a claim. The Liberty Dollar coins are not subject to this fee, and the digital Liberty Dollar (the "eLibertyDollar") is assessed a transfer fee rather than demurrage.

NORFED does accept Liberty Dollars for its various products and services.

Participating in the RCO business model is completely voluntary. Many people who are not part of this program, including myself, are very actively involved in the Liberty Dollar without being part of the RCO program, and some, including again myself, recommend against it despite being wholeheartedly supportive of the Liberty Dollar as an overall concept. To argue against the LD because of the RCO plan, which has only been around since early 2003 vs. the LD's six years going on seven, is like saying that Avon skin cream is sub-standard, as evidenced by Avon's home sales plan.

Thanks for your reply. Apparently you are personally familiar with NORFED. Nonetheless, we need to have some verifiable sources for this info. Let me re-state the questions. Is there a sales tax on buying LDs? How much are the "transfer fee" and "demurrage" costs? I couldn't find any reference to NORFED accepting LDs, and in fact they indicate that they will not exchange them. On what basis do you assert that they will accept them as payment? As for the RCO plan, thanks for the info about the date of founding, maybe we can find a source for that. It isn't clear how the whole thing fits together. The NORFED site is rather obscure, and there are very few other sources. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Regarding your additional questions:

Is there a sales tax on buying LDs?

This would depend I think on your own state. NORFED does business in Indiana, which does not appear to charge sales tax on bullion or numismatic products ([1]), and which definately does not charge for mail/Internet sales sent out of state. I am not familiar with the tax codes of all fifty states, of course, but it would seem that purchases of Liberty Dollars or anything else from outside of the state of Indiana are not subject to sales tax in Indiana.

How much are the "transfer fee" and "demurrage" costs?

The eLibertyDollar transfer fee is $ 0.37 for transfers of $ 10.00 or more and free for transfers of $ 9.99 or less ([2]) The demurrage on the silver certificates is 1% per year beginning five years after issuance and ending at expiration (the certificates expire after twenty years.) Unfortunately cannot find this on the NORFED site; am reading it directly off of one of the certificates. Doesn't mean it isn't there -- the site is huge and has no site map.

I couldn't find any reference to NORFED accepting LDs, and in fact they indicate that they will not exchange them. On what basis do you assert that they will accept them as payment?

This too may be lost somewhere in the fold of the NORFED site; however, I have personally spent them there and more relevantly NORFED representatives including BvN have publicly stated so at the ALD Forum, a non-affiliated discussion group. [3]

As for the RCO plan, thanks for the info about the date of founding, maybe we can find a source for that. It isn't clear how the whole thing fits together.

If you mean the founding date of the RCO plan, that would be approximately July 2003. There was at least one preceding circulation model, but I am not certain on its date of commencement. Sorry to be so obscure, but having not participated in the NORFED organisational structure I have only observed it with passive interest at best. I believe that there is a NORFED newsletter archive online, which would have this information, but someone more closely associated with NORFED will have to post a link.

I use Liberty Dollars on a regular basis. Getting liberty Dollars is exactly like going to the bank and getting a roll of quarters. I do not pay sales tax on either transaction. I just exchange 10 FRNs for a Silver Liberty. Transfer fees on electronic silver liberties are similar to what I pay to PayPal or to my merchant account when accepting credit cards. I gladly accept Liberty Dollars for any reason, and will redeem them for FRNs. NORFED might have a political agenda for the Liberty Dollar, but I could care less. There is something special about holding an ounce of silver in your hand, or receiving one as payment, or giving one as a gift. Liberty Dollars make me happy, and that is the reason that I use them. They just feel right and good.

I believe the Investment Scam aspect has been overlooked

I am Bill E. Branscum, a financial crimes investigator in Naples, FL. I believe that it is worthwhile to note that Bernard von Nothaus is actually marketing an investment scam - on a couple of levels.

First, I would invite you to look at Norfed's statement on their web site regarding "Liberty Associates:"

"As a new Associate you immediately get $100 Liberty Dollars back, your referrer gets $100 for sponsoring you, and NORFED retains $50 for administration. So you spent $250, got back $100 and are out $150."

The pyramid nature of this offering seems obvious to me.

Further, Bernard von NotHaus has solicited investment capital from people he has not repaid, made any effort to repay, or explained his failure to repay. I operate the FraudsAndScams.com web site and I have had complaints from various people; if this is a legitimate operation, I would ask Bernard von NotHaus if he intends to repay Jerry and Cynthia Willingham, an elderly couple who met him at a "seminar" and invested proceeds from the sale of their farm many years ago.

Frankly, I perceive these sorts of things as being Darwinian - anyone who believes that they should protect their assets by purchasing silver at a dramatic markup, and accepts a "warehouse receipt" with an expiration date in exchange for their "investment" might do better to invest in a tinfoil hat.

Cordially,

Bill E. Branscum

Frmr. Special Agent, US Department of the Treasury

www.FraudsAndScams.com

Can you provide information on a pending class-action lawsuit against Bernard and/or Norfed? 11-17-05

MR. Branscum---

Please provide some evidence to back your assertions, otherwise we must wonder if you're engaging in Libel. NotHause has never offered any seminars, is not a get-rich-quick type guy, and has never solicited or provided any way for people to invest large sums of money "proceeds from sale of a farm". Unless, of course, the farm cost $250.

If you think paying a referral fee makes something a pyramid scheme, then you really need to look up "pyramid scheme".

About the only thing believable in your comment is that you were a former special agent for the department of the treasury--- only many years of intensive training could make you so ignorant.

Put up, or shut up, or risk a libel suit, BranScum.

Regarding pyramid schemes - typically they exchange nothing of value except a promise to pay backed by hot air. NORFED's promise to pay is backed by silver holdings. So while it might be considered by some as "bad investing", the "pyramid scheme" that is so "blatantly obvious" does not actually hold true when you figure out what you are getting and actually get it. If you are then free to buy as he states and recieve product, then it is probably not a pyramid scheme. If he didn't send you anything for your stuff then maybe you should worry. But I mean, heck, if the paper IOU's the Fed issues for the US government is good enough for most folks, why not these?

That is not an accurate description of pyramid scams. Frequently they will offer something of value; it is just of substantially LESS value than either the cost or the normal retail price. Many MLMs try to disguise this by offering a product that only they make cheaply, while dramatically hyping up the value of it by making claims about the manufacturing process. (i.e., "It's concentrated!") But rest assured, you need not be lacking a product in order to be considered a pyramid scam.

--24.28.11.145 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A pyramid scheme, unsurprisingly, is structured liked a pyramid. The people at each level of the scheme profit from the investments of the people at all of the levels below them, so that the profits at each level, going from the bottom up, grow geometrically, while those at the very bottom get nothing. The LD Associate program isn't anything like that. Associates get to buy LDs near cost, and can put them into circulation at cost or for a small profit. Liberty Services (formerly NORFED) makes almost no profit off of Associates after the initial fee, but the purpose of the organization isn't profit (which is typically reinvested), it's promotion of the LD as a medium of barter to provide an alternative to using rapidly depreciating "legal tender". New LD Associates get LDs and various materials that are useful for promoting LDs, in exchange for that initial fee; they also get near-cost LDs for the rest of their lives. More LD Associates means more people promoting LDs, so LD Associates get a bit of their initial fee back if they refer someone else to become an Associate. Each LD Associate can only get money back for one referral, so it's not a MLM (which requires at least two referrals for geometric expansion and an ongoing cut of the profits of the referred people, quite similar to a pyramid scheme, but with actual products that can be sold rather than just profits off of the signup fees from referrals). Liberty Services makes very little profit and offers something of actual and substantial value, using only a single-level referral system as an incentive for recruiting new distributors. It isn't a MLM. It isn't a pyramid scheme. Rich333 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This article has been rebuilt from scratch by some nice person (not me) as such the old, irrelevant discussion has been deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for facts, not a magazine for opinion and discussion. There are other, appropriate places for debate and discussion. Thank you so much Universeman, for returning this article to just the facts. Lance W. Haverkamp 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, please don't delete talk page comments. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The presence of this article in Wikipedia demonstrates what is wrong with Wikipedia. Where is the article on the validity of Monopoly money?????172.130.30.243 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)wsb 2/20/07

ELibertyDollar

Why is ELibertyDollar a separate article? Why shouldn't it be merged here? -Willmcw 07:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

value based on misrepresentation

The exchange value of the liberty dollar is based on fraudulently representing it as legal tender, rather than it being back by silver. If you look at the web-page, under "how to spend it," you will see that it is a guide to avoid suspicion. The silver value is irrelevant to a small merchant, who has no time to go and exchange the silver for more liquid cash. If they were upfront about it, the exhange value of the liberty coin would not be equal to USD. If they were upfront and NORFED truly supported a free-market for money, people would also be more willing to accept it in local economies and establish exchanges so you can trade in liberty dollars for USD, corporate scrips, or other things at the exchange rate they choose. Instead, they choose to promote this campaign of deception and fraud.

Just because NORFED prints "$10" on it coins does not mean you will be able to exchange it for "$10" worth of goods and services. In all likelihood, you won't be able to exchange it all. Once a merchant has been deceived once and tries to deposit that LD at his bank, he will realize he's been duped. If you look at the list of merchants that accept LDs, most are either associates ( who accpet FRN for LD, but not the other way), and metal traders who redeem LD for its silver value in FRN. There are only a handful of places where you can actually get goods and services with LD, and most of these are not your normal day-to-day transactions. There is also no guarantee from any of theses places that you will get the face value of the LD, instead of its silver value.

Secondly, you can buy 1 oz. silver coins from Sunshine Mints, the same company that mints teh liberty dollars, at much less than the cost of the LD. Not to mention junk silver for even cheaper.Vindicator99 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You mistaken on some points:

• NORFED does not, and never has, represented it as legal tender.
• They state up front that the value of LDs is in the silver, not the dollar value.
• The web page "how to spend it" stresses letting people know that it's not legal tender

Printing a dollar value on their notes may be slightly deceiving, but certainly not fraudulent. They want to cater to lazy Americans who are unaccustomed to thinking in several forms of currency. The tradeoff is between ease of use (not having to calculate based on spot silver price every transaction) vs. how closely LD value follows silver. Hogeye 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "They state up front that the value of LDs is in the silver, not the dollar value." How does a dollar of silver value differ from a dollar of U.S. currency? If an ounce of silver sells for $7, how does an ounce of coined silver have $10 of silver value? Or aren't they now marked as having $20 of silver value? -Will Beback 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The web page "how to spend it" has a disclaimer about it not being legal tender, but any fool can see that it is a guide to avoid suspicion of that fact.

The marking of a dollar value is downright fraudulent. They are not legal tender, and therefore, of no more value than any other 1 oz. silver coin. When they changed the one ounce from "$10" to "$20" it just demonstrated that their whole set up is a scam. It would be one thing to charge $20 in FRNs for the same "$10" coin. But they changed the marking on the coin to be fixed to the FRN, and collecting more than twice as much profit per coin. How are they trying to replace FRNs when they are doing this??

As far as "americans being lazy," I find that excuse ridiculous. I live near the Canadian border, and it isn't an ordeal to calculate simple percentage when paying with different currencies. If they wanted to really replace FRNs, they would simply drop the monetary designation of "x dollars" on the coin and replace it with "1 Norfed," or some other such unit to designate it from FRNs. It is clearly designed to prey on the ignorance of merchants.Vindicator99 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to a currency exchange. Hong Kong uses "dollars" too. As do many other countries. A "dollar" is not an American Currency trademark name.maouse

I worked on it some, but it still stinks.

This article is clearly an advertisement for a multi-level marketing scheme with a bait-and-switch on several levels. I changed the article, getting rid of the speculative language and negative assertions. BrianGCrawfordMA 17:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I've worked on it too, but some of the old promotional material has returned. It's very hard to get specifics on details like the transaction costs. Good luck -Will Beback 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

removed from intro

Removed:

popular among those who belong to the militia movement or the Christian patriot movement, or those who share some of the core beliefs of these groups, such as the idea that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional abomination or that the Internal Revenue Service is a private company with no real enforcement power. It

Sentences of such kind don't belong to intro. The piece has several problems. Since ir refers to evaluations, rather than facts, the sources of the claims is a must. Second, the language ("abomination") is inappropriate. Third, criticism cannot be in the first sentence, which must give a concise definition. Fourth, what the heck is militia movement? The wikilink is very broad. mikka (t) 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it again, for the above stated reasons. -Will Beback 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that passage above, and I have to admit that I didn't really expect this to stay very long and probably won't restore it even though I believe it's completely true. I could easily go back through my search history and find at least ten Christian Patriot type sites to reference to get that stuff about "patriots" and "militias" back in, but I'm sure it won't stick. A lot of the stuff I was sure wouldn't pass muster has stayed, so I'm rather pleased with that. I ran across a lot of sites that view the Fed as an unconstitutional abomination but never use those words. I must say, I love the word "abomination." It's quite picturesque, and, for me, conjures images of crazed Christian Fundamentalists in the grip of a Satanic panic. These survivialist patriot types eat this Liberty Dollar crap right up. For people who hate the government so much, they're remarkably optimistic and unrealistic. Apparently, on Wikipedia, all sources get equal consideration, even if they're written by total whackjobs who stockpile guns and hoard silver out west for the End-Times while tapping out their cyberspace manifestos. It's really a great time to be an American. Meanwhile, I'll be stockpiling Spam and frozen, concentrated orange juice. Silver may be bright and shiny and useful in electronics, but you can't eat it. Maybe I'll print my own money backed by frozen juice I keep in a deep freeze in my garage. Or maybe I won't. BrianGCrawfordMA 00:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't belong to the "militia movement" or the "Christian patriot movement", I don't care if the FR is unconstitutional, as I don't consider the Constitution as possessing any legitimate authority (read Lysander Spooner), nor do I think that the IRS is a private company, though I do think both the FR and the IRS are criminal enterprises, the former committing mass fraud and the latter committing mass armed robbery. I'm also an atheist, not a "crazed Christian Fundamentalist", though I do think the perceived need for "governments" derives from the same underlying superstitions, and have ample evidence to prove they result in the same barbaric and irrational rituals and behaviors as any organized religion. I'm far from a "whackjob", unless you count an obsessive need to be rational and consistent in my views and behavior, or to study history, science, economics, and philosophy. I don't stockpile guns, yet, though that's from lack of funds and just having moved out a place where the second amendment was made null and void many decades before I was even born; considering it was governments, not private individuals, who murdered close to 200 million people in the 20th century alone, and that the victims were almost always unarmed or poorly armed, I think stockpiling guns is quite sensible. I don't hoard silver, though I do find it to be one of many sound investments, when I have the cash to spare for that sort of thing. I don't live "out west", I'm closer to the middle of the country, though until recently I had lived in NYC my whole life; the cost of living in that nearly-totalitarian police state was more than I could afford, and it's nice not having to deal with the petty tyrants and thugs who make up the bulk of the NYPD ("NYC's Finest" is newspeak for "the most violently abusive, irrational, stupid, and just generally worthless people in all of NYC"). I don't believe in "the End-Times", unless you mean the heat death of the universe a few tens of billions of years from now. I don't have any "cyberspace manifestos", though I do debate people online rather frequently. I find it rather amusing that you'd rant about "survivalists" while "stockpiling Spam and frozen, concentrated orange juice". People who hate the government have every right to do so, as it is claimed to be founded on consent, but no such consent actually exists; oh, and they routinely rob and murder people, like a larger version of the mob with a better PR department. I certainly do not consent to be ruled by others, to be treated as their property to do with as they please, to be controlled and destroyed as they please. The only bounds on my activities that I recognize as legitimate are the equal rights of others to be secure in their persons and labor products, as it would require a performative contradiction to violate those rights, given the aprioristic need to exercise those very same rights to do so (like I said, I'm a bit obsessive about being rational and consistent, regardless of how irrational or inconsistent others may be). Those people I know among whom LDs are popular are similarly quite different from what you claimed. Just so you know, for future reference, the particular logical fallacy in which you engaged was the "hasty generalization", Masshole. Rich333 (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is grossly POV

Earlier versions of the article read like an advertisement for NORFED. Newer versions appear to have done a 180-degree turn, and the article is now a critical POV essay. Here are a few of the problematic statements (some of which I have altered or removed):

• "These associates are also instructed by NORFED to pass Liberty Dollars, which closely resemble older U.S. coins issued for circulation, to retailers without explaining that they are not legal tender. At least two men have been arrested for doing this."
• "NORFED counts on the fact that merchants have been known to accept Liberty Dollars, erroneously believing that they are legal tender. Two men in New York State were charged with passing counterfeit money for doing exactly this."
  • Here, NORFED is being accused of sponsoring criminal activity. Maybe they have - honestly, I don't know - but such accusations must be cited to a specific source. They can't just be included on their own. There should be citations for both the arrests and for the accusation that NORFED advocated such activity.
• "The currency is barely tolerated by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Government and is not legal tender."
  • What does "barely tolerated" mean? Either it's legal or it's not. If someone from the U.S. government is on record saying that it's legal but that they don't like it, then that should be quoted. This statement is POV.
• "Liberty Dollars are not, under any circumstances, redeemable by anyone for US dollars, but they are freely sold for U.S. Dollars."
  • This should be changed to say NORFED doesn't guarantee redemption at par. In practice, they're worth whatever someone chooses to pay for them (probably bullion value in most cases).
• "NORFED endorses a return to bimetalism, a failed monetary strategy of the past which does not work, according to Gresham's Law, because it leaves only the least desirable metal in circulation while the other one (gold in the case of the early 20th century in the U.S.) is hoarded."
  • A blatant POV essay that has no place in a Wikipedia article.
• "NotHaus cites a 96% loss in the value of the U.S. Dollar, based on the Consumer Price Index as a selling point for the Liberty Dollar, but makes no mention of the value lost by silver over the years since its value was allowed to float on the world market."
• "NORFED sold one ounce silver coins valued at ten Liberty Dollars for US$10, but on Thanksgiving Day, 2005, raised the price to US$20. NORFED claims that this was to adjust the ALD for the falling purchasing power of U.S. dollars in relation to silver. Silver, however, did not double in price as the change in value of one ounce Liberty rounds would suggest. Silver has not gone above ten U.S. Dollars in value since the NORFED's revaluation of the Liberty Dollar."
  • This form of arguing is not encyclopedic. Can this criticism of Liberty dollars be cited to a specific critic?

Don't get me wrong. I hold no brief for NORFED, and only a fool would pay $20 an ounce for silver bullion. But that doesn't excuse blatant violations of WP:NPOV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What I find really amusing about this:

* "NORFED sold one ounce silver coins valued at ten Liberty Dollars for US$10, but on Thanksgiving Day, 2005, raised the price to US$20. NORFED claims that this was to adjust the ALD for the falling purchasing power of U.S. dollars in relation to silver. Silver, however, did not double in price as the change in value of one ounce Liberty rounds would suggest. Silver has not gone above ten U.S. Dollars in value since the NORFED's revaluation of the Liberty Dollar."

is that the silver spot price is over $18 right now, less than 3 years later. Paying a little above the spot price for minting and warehousing and the continued operation of Liberty Services (formerly NORFED) is well worth it when you consider the value of being shielded, and helping to shield your community, from the devastating effects of a crashing US dollar. The rebasings in suggested US dollar values only occur after Liberty Services starts to lose money from the rapidly depreciating value of the US dollar; they make no secret of the point at which a rebasing will occur, and it's based on the silver spot price being above a certain point (a point at which they start to lose money) for X consecutive days, with X rising after each rebasing. I bought some LDs about a year before the $10->$20 rebasing, and that silver's now worth well more than double the US dollars I paid to NORFED, in terms of US dollars. If the value of the US dollar dropped to down to about that of a continental, those LDs would still be worth about the same in real purchasing power as when I bought them, which is about the same as the real purchasing power that they have now. Rich333 (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro

1. The Liberty Dollar is a private currency. It is issued by an organization called "NORFED," which is a partial acronym for "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service." NORFED is a non-profit company based in Evansville, Indiana, founded to espouse radical, minority views on the U.S. Constitution and to promote the Liberty Dollar through multi-level marketing techniques. Its affiliated mint and warehouse, however, are not non-profit concerns. Potential investors in the NORFED Liberty Dollar, called "Associates," are offered incentives such as the opportunity to buy Liberty Dollars at a lowered price and the opportunity to sell them, in turn, for their face value in U.S. Dollars.
2. Liberty Dollars are specially-minted .999 pure silver coins and .9999 pure gold coins, as well as silver certificates and gold certificates sold as "warehouse receipts," which can be traded for silver Liberty coins. NORFED offers another product for sale, eLibertyDollars, which are redeemable with some restrictions for the coins. The currency is not legal tender, and NORFED does not guarantee that they can be converted back into standard U.S. or world currency at par. NORFED currently sets the value of twenty Liberty Dollars at one ounce of silver, which at present, as of February, 2006, worth about nine and a half U.S. Dollars.
3. NORFED endorses a return to bimetallism, which it promotes by aggressively marketing its Liberty Dollar products, denominated gold and silver rounds and paper money sold as "warehouse receipts."
4. NORFED is headed by Bernard von NotHaus, a mintmaster for a private mint located in Hawaii called the Royal Hawaiian Mint, which has no connection to the Hawaiian government, despite its name. NotHaus cites a 96% loss in the value of the U.S. Dollar, based on the Consumer Price Index as a selling point for the Liberty Dollar, but makes no mention of the value lost by silver over the years since its value was allowed to float on the world market. Since the price of silver was allowed to float, its value has been manipulated by such investors as the Hunt Brothers and Warren Buffet, cementing its reputation as a volatile commodity. The United States dollar was once defined by law (see gold standard) as a specific weight of gold, and at one time certain, specific types of paper money could be exchanged for gold or silver coins. This is no longer the case, but NotHaus advocates a return to this policy. Breaking from most proponents of hard money policy, he believes that he is the person to bring money backed with metal to the American people.
5. From its inception in 1998 to November 23 2005, NORFED sold one ounce silver coins valued at ten Liberty Dollars for US$10, but on Thanksgiving Day, 2005, raised the price to US$20. NORFED claims that this was to adjust the ALD for the falling purchasing power of U.S. dollars in relation to silver. Silver, however, did not double in price as the change in value of one ounce Liberty rounds would suggest. Silver has not gone above ten U.S. Dollars in value since the NORFED's revaluation of the Liberty Dollar.
6. NORFED does not guaranTee the exchange Liberty Dollars back to U.S. dollars, claiming that such exchanges are against its goal of increasing the silver and gold in monetary circulation. Paper Liberty Dollars can be exchanged with certain restrictions for the specially minted coins.
7. Liberty Dollars are accepted in only a handful of locations. NORFED maintains a website listing merchants who have indicated that they accept them. NORFED counts on the fact that merchants have been known to accept Liberty Dollars, erroneously believing that they are legal tender. Two men in New York State were charged with passing counterfeit money for doing exactly this.

Which part of the above text is not factually correct? Surely it isn't all incorrect. -Will Beback 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Number five is incorrect, or more accurately out of date. Silver has been above $10.00 per ounce non-stop since (coincidentally) the day after you made this comment (see http://www.kitco.com for charts) It is noteworthy that the current ratio of spot price to ALD face value is actually higher than it was for most of the time that the $10.00 face value was in effect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.125.95.118 (talk • contribs).

The Liberty Dollar Propaganda Machine

http://www.the7thfire.com/Liberty_Dollar/liberty_films.html

Check out the above link for a good laugh. I'm going to look into this more. Does anyone think this stuff should be mentioned? BrianGCrawfordMA 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit over the top, but the Liberty Films' Board of Advisers has some known-names, so I guess it isn't a joke. I'd say that once we decide Liberty Films is notable enough to have an article then the connection would be notable. The "sponsorship" may be limited to running an ad. I couldn't find the promised Star Trek take-off. -Will Beback 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a search for "Liberty Films," and it's a company that made films promoting the U.S. war effort during World War II. Frank Capra is listed as part of it, and he's been dead since 1991, before the Liberty Dollar came into existence, so I'm sure the two ventures aren't related. Maybe that's why I can't find any more about the NORFED propaganda firm "Liberty Films." BrianGCrawfordMA 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure that this is closely connected to NORFED? I saw an ad for Liberty Dollars, but is there more than that? -Will Beback 20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the parties involved in the Liberty Film idea. I've looked, but I haven't been able to find out more. It looks like a dead end. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That may well describe the enterprise. Production companies that haven't released a single film are not notable. On the other hand, if they collect a lot of money and never produce a film then that might be interesting in another way. It's too bad there aren't more newspaper of magazine articles about this topic. -Will Beback 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to the news article about two men getting arrested is broken.

I checked it out. The link is up again.

It is now broken again and one can not even find the article in Webarchive.

External link

Why is this link:

• "Liberty Dollar celebrates 6th anniversary, gaining in popularity across U.S." by Jayne Andrews, September 30, 2004, East Tennessee Business Journal

Being changed from pointing to the East Tennessee Business Journal website to something called "volunteersilver.com"? It seems more fitting to link to the original source. -Will Beback 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The link to the original website often shows up dead and the type is too small to read. With the editor's permission, I pasted it on volunteersilver.com which is my site. CFVertigo 21:13, 28 June 2006

I don't know that the site is down often, but I'll assume you're right and that you have permission. Please avoid linking to your own site whenever possible. It's considered bad form. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM. -Will Beback 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal private currency

Why is it called a legal private currency? The usage of the word legal as it's used in legal tender doesn't apply and AFAIK there isn't such a thing as an illegal private currency (at least in the US) Nil Einne 21:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it should read "privately issued, lawful currency". Come to think of it, the only illegal currency is the Federal Reserve Note, as the constitution clearly requires government [sanctioned] money to be gold or silver. --LanceHaverkamp 10:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires Federal (U.S. national) government sanctioned money to be gold or silver. Federal reserve notes are Federal currency, not state currency. As I have stated on another Wikipedia talk page, Article I section 10 does not require Federal government money to be gold or silver. Neither does it require Federal government money to be backed by gold or silver. The U.S. Constitution does not require that Federal government money be backed by anything at all.

Article I section 10 states (in relevant part): "No State shall [ . . . ] coin Money [ or ] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" (emphasis added).

Congress is not a "State." Nothing in the U.S. Constitution says that Congress cannot establish Federal Reserve notes or hula hoops or ping pong balls (or anything else it pleases) as legal tender.

The "legality" of Federal Reserve notes is a legal issue. As I recall, the statutes specifically state (in part):

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. [See 31 U.S.C. § 5103.]

Therefore, under U.S. law, Federal reserve notes are not "illegal currency." I would argue that we can't make Federal reserve notes "illegal currency" merely by believing they're illegal, or by saying in Wikipedia that they're illegal. The Constitution is what it is and section 5103 is what it is, regardless of what we believe, and regardless of what arguments we make to the contrary.

If two parties have a real dispute about this, the issue can be decided as a legal matter only by a court of law. Yours, Famspear 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to get off on too much of a tangent, but does that mean that Taxes can only be collected from STATES since that is what the Constitution says? And we can all tell them to frell off next time the IRS comes calling? The government long ago forgot about "legal". Is the Federal State of Washington D.C. a state? That would be the determining issue. Do we have State(s) in a Republic or a Federalist form of government? And which is backed by the Constitution? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.116.115 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Until the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, yes, there was no legal form of a Federal income tax. 72.40.155.239 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You almost had it. The statements are "No State shall ... coin money" and "No state shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". This clearly states that states can't make their own money and that they can only accept gold and silver as legal tender. Unless your hula hoops or ping-pong balls are, or are backed by, gold or silver, they are not legal tender. All laws must abide by the (amendable) constitution or be struck down as illegal. 72.40.155.239 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 72.40.155.239: No, sorry. I don't merely "almost" have it. I have it quite well. The U.S. Constitution does not say that "states can't make their own money." The Constitution also does not say that states can only "accept" gold and silver as legal tender." Again, here's the language:

No State shall [ . . . ] coin Money [ or ] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" (emphasis added).

The above passage places no limitation at all upon the Congress. It places limits on the states.

It does provide that no state can itself coin money.

The passage does not say that a state cannot make something legal tender -- but the passage does more or less imply that if a state wants to make something legal tender, that "something" has to be a gold or silver coin -- a gold or silver coin, however, that the state itself is not authorized to "coin." Thus, if the Federal government issues gold and silver coins, a state could presumably make those gold and silver coins legal tender.

All this, however, is quite aside from the silly argument that U.S. Federal reserve notes are somehow "illegal." Again, as I indicated above, Congress is not a "State." I repeat: Nothing in the U.S. Constitution says that Congress cannot establish Federal Reserve notes or hula hoops or ping pong balls (or anything else it pleases) as legal tender. Yours, Famspear 21:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear users: There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says or means "that Taxes can only be collected from STATES." Regarding the question of the District of Columbia, the District is not a state (although it is treated as a state for some legal purposes).

And there were several perfectly legal Federal income taxes prior to the Sixteenth Amendment. Some of them are covered in articles in Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to a different forum. This page is just for discussing the article. Without sources that directly mention the subject of the article, this is all irrelevant. -Will Beback · † · 22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The genesis of this discussion is the comment above: "Come to think of it, the only illegal currency is the Federal Reserve Note, as the constitution clearly requires government [sanctioned] money to be gold or silver", which was in reference to the article. But editor Will Beback has a good point. Things have a way of drifting, drifting ..... Yours, Famspear 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Congress is limited by what the constitution allows as the constitution is an enumeration of government allowances. If the constitution does not allow congress a power, then congress does not have that power. See the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for clarification. The constitution needs to place no limit on congress as congress has no power except what is granted it by the consitution. Unlike yourself, I will not edit your comments, but to note that you're simply repeating yourself. That laws and practices exist that have not been judged unconstitutional makes them no less so. I have no further comment. 72.40.155.239 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user at IP 72.40.155.239: Under U.S. law, the Tenth Amendment does not limit the power of Congress to enact the Federal Reserve Act. Neither does the Amendment limit Congressional power to provide for a Federal Reserve System, nor does it limit Congressional power to provide for Federal Reserve notes as legal tender.

I don't know what you mean by the statement "Unlike yourself, I will not edit your comments [ . . . ]".

The statement: "That laws and practices exist that have not been judged unconstitutional makes them no less so" is legally incorrect, and is tantamount to saying that laws and practices are unconstitutional simply because you or I believe they are. Constitutionality is a legal concept, and is decided by courts of law, not by private individuals -- and certainly not on the discussion pages of Wikipedia.

Yes, I am repeating myself. Yours, Famspear 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes it an "American" currency?

The relationship between the Liberty Dollar and the USA is rather unclear.

Despite their lack of confidence in the Federal Reserve System, NORFED is clearly a patriotic organization - judging by the flag logo on their website, and the words "American" and "USA" on the certificates and gold/silver rounds. However, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to regard the Liberty Dollar as an American currency, in the conventional sense. Most currencies are associated with a single country (or group of countries), by legal tender laws. The US Federal Reserve dollar is designated as legal tender for settlement of debts in a specific group of countries and territories (the United States, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, etc.); it has a value in other countries, but only because local banks and individuals offer to exchange it. The Liberty Dollar, on the other hand, seems to have equal status in all countries, since there is no law anywhere requiring anyone to accept it in settlement of a debt!

I would assume, from reading this article and the official website, that the Liberty Dollar has no legal connection with the USA, but is branded as American simply because NORFED itself is based in the US, and they chose to brand it that way? I suppose one could argue that the LD is "American" in the same sense that baseball or Cajun cuisine is American - or in the sense that a shirt label says "Made in the USA" - but this is not the usual sense of nationality applied to a currency. In fact it appears that the whole purpose of Liberty Dollars (albeit an impractical one) is to liberate the bearer from financial dependence on any nation's government. Perhaps this issue should be clarified somehow in the introduction?

Mtford 09:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes it a USA currency and American is USA citizens who use it in America. It has a legal connection in that one is exercising their right to private barter (whether mentioned in the B.O.R.'s or not). Thus it ties back to the Constitution and self evident inalienable rights of man (mankind if you prefer). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.116.115 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Does this add up?

According to the liberty dollar website, a 1oz silver coin, valued at 20 Liberty Dollars, costs 20 US Dollars. However, 1oz of silver regularly costs only about 10 US Dollars. What the fuck? Why would anybody make this investment? --Kinghajj 09:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Liberty Dollar is not an investment. If you want to invest in silver, then try silver bullion or gold stocks. CFVertigo.

A loaf of bread contains about 16 cents worth of ingredients... and sells for $1.99? A half-gallon of soy milk costs 4 cents to produce and costs $3.89 in the supermarket?? A Cadillac costs $50,000 but only has about $900 worth of metal in it? Wow!! Imagine, paying more for a finished product than the value of its contents. Is this concept NEW to many of you? Or, to rephrase, a $20 silver Liberty contains $14.00 (currently) worth of silver?? I'm sorry, but the question of the "value" of silver compared to the sale price of a silver Liberty is utter nonsense... especially since you pay the "spot" price for silver when you are buying bricks of it, not when you buy a single medallion. Any statement to the contrary MUST be from folks who know nothing about the precious metals market. I am truly tired of hearing folks ask why the silver Liberty says $20 when silver is worth whatever the current spot price is. It is rediculous to think that anyone in the world can purchase anything in the world for the cost of its ingredients. So, if you want to pay 16 cents for a loaf of bread, you need to buy several hundred tons of wheat from the farm, and crank up those ovens. If you want to buy soy milk for 4 cents per half-gallon, get yourself a good soymilk maker and get to work. If you want to drive a Cadillac for the price of the metal in it, I suggest getting yourself a good blow torch, and scurry off to the nearest welding class pronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.18.188 (talk • contribs) 4 December 2006

Legality

OK, now we know that "the use of these gold and silver NORFED 'Liberty Dollar' medallions as circulating money is a Federal crime" under 18 U.S.C. § 486. What about the paper form of Liberty dollar? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but,

• whoever... with intent to defraud, makes, ... or uses ...any coin or other currency not legal tender in the United States, to procure anything of value...shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.. [4]

Without an intent to defraud there may not be a violation. -Will Beback 09:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What you miss and (I think intentionally so on the part of the U.S. Mint) is the distinction between what was said and what was heard. Using LD's "AS CIRCUTALING MONEY" is a federal crime. As any counterfitting scheme would be. NOWHERE are you instructed to do so. NOWHERE does the U.S. Mint actually accuse NORFED of suggesting you do this. So really this is a NON-STATEMENT designed to purposefully discredit NORFED by making it SEEM like they are doing something illegal. Which they are not (or at least the U.S. Mint and SEC nor any other government agency has ever even accused them of doing so). So what you are seeing is propaganda. Pure and simple folks. Read between the lines. Or at least read it for what it says IN TOTALITY. Heck the fact that they call them medallions indicates the U.S. Mint knows they are legal to posess.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.116.115 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

In much the same way as two parties may agree to exchange a motorcycle for a small car (neither of which are legal tender under law), two parties may agree to exchange $20USD worth of goods (such as bread) for a silver coin from NORFED. The latter is no more illegal than the former. As for net "worth", value is extremely subjective (most have, at some point negotiated for a better price), and requires consensus amongst the parties in question. What might is worth $100 to you might be worth only $10 to me, and vice versa. Fallout11 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it would be perfectly legal to barter a motorcycle for a small car, I can see how exchanging goods for liberty currency can be problematic, particularly given how liberty currency is issued in structured denominations with indicated values (even if they are suggested values) including fiat currency (the paper bills). By using a fixed and structured means of exchange such as liberty currency as opposed to ad hoc means (as bartering is typically understood to entail), isn't liberty currency therefore being used as circulating money? While reading the comments above, I can't shake the sense that the proponents are simply engaging in semantic contortions in order to claim that liberty currency and its use is entirely legal. Shinsengumi 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'circulating money' in the discussion above seems to cover two very different ideas. If Liberty dollars & medallions are designed to resemble US notes & coin then they are counterfeits. This thread contains arguments that Liberty dollars are part of a pyramid scheme, which would also justify legal prohibition. On the other hand, no one has explained why circulating a clearly marked alternate currency should be forbidden. In principle the issuer could control the currency in much the same way that the Federal Reserve controls US dollars. If contracting parties considered the alternate currency more predictable, they should be able to specify payment in that currency. Jorgen Harmse, 18th January, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for certain language

Regarding the following language in the article:

According to NORFED, its Liberty Dollar currency was submitted to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing for review, which verified that the Liberty Dollar is not an attempt to counterfeit under 18 U.S.C. § 3056.

Exactly what is the source for this? Did NORFED issue a statement to this effect? Is there a way to link to the NORFED statement? If not, should there at least be a specific citation to whatever statement NORFED made?

Secondly, even if a citation to the source for the NORFED statement can be provided, can someone show that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing actually did review the Liberty Dollar, and actually did "verify" that the Liberty Dollar is not an attempt to counterfeit?

I have no knowledge of this subject, but it sounds a bit odd to say that a government bureau bothered to "verify" such a thing. I know that the Internal Revenue Service is not, at your request, usually going to "verify" for you that your tax return is correct, etc. (They'll tell you if they think your return is wrong, though!) However, I haven't been keeping up with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing lately.

Does anyone have anything on this? Yours, Famspear 18:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

$500 vs $1000

Recently, instances of $500 were changed to $1000 in the article. But the images on wiki still show $500. Did the official "authority" changed it recently? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the LD website has a photo with a $1000 bill, but I couldn't find any mention or explanation of the change. Was there an exchange? -Will Beback · † · 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed it from $500 to $1000. Here is the link to the LD image:

http://www.libertydollar.org/graphics/home/currencycolor.jpg

Criticism Page

This section clearly has POV and tone problems. It needs to be either rewritten or removed. Oren0 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AGREE! Renamed to Pros & Cons, inserted table & marked section Sectstub.--LanceHaverkamp 17:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed a comparison of intrinsic-to-face value that I put in the section marked 'face value'. This is a direct comparison, and unworthy of the 'BS' label placed on it. Furthermore, this user added POV comments. Reverted. Flickboy 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to put in an "intrinsic value" section you should also put in a "full faith and credit" section. The reputation of the Federal Reserve versus the reputation of NORFED. Either way, these Pro/Con sections need better sources. -Will Beback · † · 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The US Constitution does not require the dollar to be gold or silver. In fact, the word "dollars" only appears once in the entire text of the Constitution, in Article I Section 9. This incorrect sentence was removed. Nor does the Constitution use the phrase "lawful money." Also removed: legal conclusions without case attributions (Federal Reserve Notes are 'unconstitutional', and the like), and POV statements (Liberty Dollar is "fun", etc).

I shouldn't have to point this out, but as someone will invariably revert, I will weigh in on the 'dollar' issue here. Article I Section 10 states: "No state shall ... coin money [or] make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." There are two concepts here: money and tender. Tender is payment of a debt, and need not be money. For instance, one may tender services to repay a debt. The Constitution can be read as saying that no one may, for example, perform a service for the government in lieu of paying taxes. Money is different. It can be used as a tender, or as a currency, or as a store of value, or as a claim on value. It can be coined, or printed, or even grown in a field. States may not coin money, but the Constitution does not explicitly require money to be coin. In fact, at the time of the Constitution's drafting, there were paper 'dollars' in circulation, the Continentals, which were not coin. Furthermore, as I already pointed out, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring dollars to be coins, or silver, or gold. If anyone doesn't believe me, I suggest you give the Constitution another, more careful reading. Flickboy 08:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Those same Continentals were, unfortunately, nearly worthless, the result of hyperinflationary expansionist monetary policies necessitated by the financial needs of the American Revolution itself and by the near-inability of the US government, under the Articles of Confederation, to collect taxes (see the Whiskey Rebellion for example) and pay for its expenses in the aftermath. The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of the dangers associated with the rampant printing of fiat currency at both the bank, state, and federal level (having seen it firsthand), and sought to avoid it with the language found in the Constitution, specifying Congressional control over the treasury and the coining (key term) of money. See also Thomas Jefferson's remarks concerning the matter in The Kentucky Resolutions, 1798, and again during the discussions over a the pros and cons of creating a national bank.

Continentals were removed from circulation over the next few years following the adoption of the Constitution, and were not replaced. Fiat currency, that is, paper money, did not return in US history until the "greenback" during the difficult times of the Civil War, and these were once again removed from circulation in the years that followed. Fallout11 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Our own interpretations of the U.S. Constitution may make for a fine discussion at another timer in a different place, but for now let's focus on the verifiable secondary sources that we can summarize for this article. Certain topics, like about the Federal Reserve and U.S. currency, have ample references available. But the core topics, NORFED and the Liberty Dollar, suffer from a lack of reliable sources. I hope we can find additional print and internet sources to support some of the Pro/Con material. -Will Beback · † · 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning message

On September 14, 2006, The United States Mint issued a press release stating "prosecutors with the United States Department of Justice have concluded that the use of NORFED’s "Liberty Dollar" medallions violates 18 U.S.C. § 486, and is a crime." In November of 2006 I contacted two new Liberty Dollar Distributors and learned that they were unaware of the DOJ designation. I therefore placed a warning at the top of the Liberty Dollar entry, including a link to the citation. Subsequently, this addition and the external link at the end of the artcle were deleted. Clearly, if NORFED seeks to use Wikipedia to help commit a fraud, as appears to be the case, then the entire Liberty Dollar article needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.148.169.47 (talk • contribs) on 1 December 2006.

We don't have warning notices in the articles about arsenic, BB guns, or sharp knives. I don't think it's our job to warn, just to inform. -Will Beback · † · 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The only ones doing anything dishonest were those in the Department of Justice. The DoJ's press release is what is known as FUD; it is meant to spread baseless Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the competition. This is a typical tactic used by established interests to undermine newer and smaller competitors. It's the same thing Microsoft got caught doing to Linux when the Halloween documents were leaked. The response from NORFED's executive director pretty well sums up the situation. If there was really anything illegal about using Liberty Dollars, the DoJ would've filed charges by now. Thanks for trying to further spread the FUD though. Anonymously, of course. Rich333 03:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Great paragraph!--LanceHaverkamp 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To be NPOV, isn't it very easy just to present the view from both parties? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that got deleted--LanceHaverkamp 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first problem is that you only got part of the statement: Use of the "medallions as currency violates 18 U.S.C. 486." was the entire quote. Use of medallions, marbles, bubble gum, gold, silver, Ithica Dollars, or whatever for exchange is NOT ILLEGAL. Using any of these as legal tender is - in all cases. The key here is that the U.S. Mint is attempting propaganda to discuorage use of the LD as a form of exchange. Why? Anybody's guess. But don't you think if it were illegal they would have arrested Mr. V for counterfeiting? Of course they would have. The assertion that when they know about counterfeitting they do nothing is disproven by the myriad of arrests of young folks who got busted for using a Canon ink jet for making two fake $20's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.116.115 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Dear editors: Looking back on this statement by IP12.37.116.115, I have a few comments. First, This statement: "But don't you think if it were illegal they would have arrested Mr. V for counterfeiting? Of course they would have." This is laughable. This is tantamount to saying "If someone hasn't been arrested yet, that person never will be arrested." It's also tantamount to saying "If someone has not been arrested yet, that person cannot have committed a crime." That's preposterous. I offer no opinion on whether any crimes have been committed, but, hey, let's get real here.

The statement also brings up the red herring of "counterfeiting." The issue is not whether making or using Liberty Dollars constitutes "counterfeiting" (such as fraudulently trying to pass Liberty Dollars as being official money, etc.).

For what it's worth, the issue here also is not whether the Liberty Dollars are legal tender for antecedent debts.

One issue that the Liberty Dollar is facing is whether the making or use of the coin version constitutes uttering current coin money, in violation of 18 USC 486. Counterfeiting and uttering coins as current money or currency are two different things. Bernard von NotHaus himself (on his web site) openly claims that Liberty Dollars are intended to be used as "currency," as "real money" (to use his own words), and urges his customers to use them that way. With respect to the coin versions, therefore, see 18 U.S.C. § 486.

On the paper versions of the Liberty Dollar, I haven't yet done a lot of research.

What's the legal answer to all this? That's to be decided in a court of law. I personally don't have any skin in this game, or any feeling pro or con about Liberty Dollars. I just think it's important in editing the article that all editors understand what some of the issues are. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pros & Cons section

Someone at IP address 68.194.221.184 removed this entire section. Where did it go, and why did it disappear? Flickboy 21:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The pros & cons section was added by me because several people can't leave a factual article alone. Many keep adding very hostile negative comments. The pros & cons was an attempt to balance the arguments. If the article can be facts-only (yeah, right) we don't need the pros & cons.--LanceHaverkamp 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro is not neutral

The intro for this article is a far cry from a neutral point of view and needs to be edited.

Here are some choice quotes:

• "However, the company that mints and warehouses Liberty Dollars (SMI in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) is a for-profit business."

This implies that there is something wrong with a not-for-profit company outsourcing fixed costs. There is nothing wrong with this and many not-for-profit companies do this for a variety of reasons. Unless there is proof of foul-play it is wrong to insinuate that there is foul-play going on.

• "NORFED currently sells Liberty Dollar rounds and paper notes of specified denominations at retail for a corresponding number of US dollars at close to double the value of the silver they are backed by."

NOT true. The spot price of silver is over $14.

• "NORFED also sells Liberty Dollars at a discount from retail to "Liberty Associates" who pay a fee to gain this status, and who receive referral commissions for signing up other Liberty Associates, though unlike a Ponzi scheme or a multilevel marketing organization, the Associate does not make a commission on referral activity carried on by the new Associate."

I question why NORFED's referal structure is being contrasted with a ponzi scheme in the introduction of the article.

• • I came across this article recently and did some significant edits. I found the whole article to be quite poor quality wrt facts and argument, but only touched parts I felt I was improving encyclopedically. Some of it, including the "obsolete" characterizations, I didn't find a way to correct without seeming argumentative. In any case, the Ponzi wording is mine, replacing a previous flat assertion that it was one. I didn't want to just delete stuff wholesale, not knowing if that would amount to POVness. ClarenceG
• "...raised the silver base to US$20. However, this actually cost holders more money, rather than increased the value of their holdings because the old silver notes and $10 Silver Liberty are obsolete and there is a reminting fee to melt down old one-ounce $10 Silver Liberties and remint them into $20 Silver Liberties (but the paper certificates can be exchanged at no charge other than your time and mailing costs.)"

This is not necessarily true, it all depends on what is meant by the term "obsolete".

• "NORFED is headed by Bernard von NotHaus, the retired 'mintmaster' for a private business that calls itself the Royal Hawaiian Mint, but has no connection to the Hawaii state government or to former Hawaiian royalty."

Please, I'm dying here.

--Philip Lowman 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The pros & cons section was there to provide a way for a balanced argument; since a facts-only article keeps getting trashed with hostile negative spin, or gets a "reads like an advertisement" banner slapped on it by a decenter. Someone deleted the entire section. If the article can be facts-only (yeah, right) we don't need the pros & cons. But in order to do that, we have to keep slapping-down the hostile comments & bogus "facts are an advertisement" claims--LanceHaverkamp 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lance,

Thanks for cleaning it up, the intro seems much better now. In regards to the pros & cons section, I say bring it back. The Liberty Dollar will probably always have controversy amidst it especially with the false allegations by the U.S. Mint . Might as well be open about it and provide a place for common criticisms of all private currencies, both federal reserve notes and liberty dollars.Philip Lowman 07:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox at the top. This apparently is a use of a template (I'm a newbie) called "currency". For some reason, the template has a key called "issuing_authority" which is rendered as "Central Bank". A while ago, I added a sentence explaining that NORFED is not a bank, and this currency is not issued by any central bank, but that was deleted. I can't imagine why. It's a simple statement of fact, and corrects an error that presumably can't be otherwise corrected without changing the currency infobox definition. ClarenceG 03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed it, Thanks!--LanceHaverkamp 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This Article is under attack

In this discussion page, and often on the main article page, people who oppose the liberty dollar, usually out of ignorance, will make a wide variety of false and unsupported claims. The bottom line is the Liberty dollar is a form of money, designed to compete with government money. It is LEGAL, MORAL and HONEST. There is nothing criminal, deceptive or unfair about it.

If someone prefers government money, or doesn't think that inflation is a problem-- then the liberty dollar is obviously not intended for them.

What I find perplexing is that such people are unwilling to allow others to choose the liberty dollar in peace. And I am amazed at the level of dishonesty exhibited-- including removal of citations to proof of facts in the article.

Wikipedia is NOT the place to fight this Battle. This page should describe waht the liberty dollar is-- not be a forum for libellous or dishonest political claims. Especially since the people making them are clearly ignorant of the law, and the facts in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.61.49.45 (talk • contribs).

This article should list the disadvantages of the liberty dollar, as well as the advantages. People read Wikipedia in order to find out everything about something. They're free to choose whatever they want "in peace", but they should be allowed to see all the information before making that decision. 216.6.149.30 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, all sides should be included in a neutral fashion, but we can't make those criticisms on our own. When some reliable 3rd party source, like a magazine, newspaper, etc, does an piece on this subject then we can summarize their reporting. But, according to a core Wikipedia policy, WP:ATT, we can't do that reporting ourselves. -Will Beback · † · 08:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a source cited in the criticisms section. In addition, most of the current article only uses NORFED as a source, which, since they make money from Liberty Dollars, are probably POV. I've re-written the Criticisms section to be much shorter, less POV, and contain only obvious or easily findable information.216.6.149.30 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The new version [5] is better. -Will Beback · † · 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.177.76 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims by US Mint

The US Mint, or actually some lackey at the mint, released a press release that made a number of unsupported allegations. These allegations DO NOT BELONG IN THE ARTICLE. The reason is that they are false on the face of them, and the claimed support has never been provided by the mint (probably because they realized that they were in fact false.)

Thus it would be bias, and dishonest to claim that: 1. The liberty dollar is illegal. -- No law has been cited that it breaks. 2. The Justice Department has ruled adversely on the liberty dollar--- the DOJ has been contacted many times, and always responded correctly that the Liberty Dollar is legal. The mints claims of a finding by the DOJ have never been supported. 3. Posession or use of the Liberty Dollar is illegal-- no court ruled this way, and nobody has been convicted of such a crime, nor has any law been cited that would make posession or trade of liberty dollars a criminal act.

Therefore, any mention of the US mint in the article must do so in a neutral way, and either present the objective fact that the US mint has not substantiated its claims, or allow for counter proof that the US mint claims are false (As they have been proven false.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.61.49.45 (talk • contribs).

The U.S. Mint and U.S. Justice Department are notable commentators on this topic. We are simply reporting on their comments. We do not, as an encyclopedia, make a judgment as to whether their assertions are accurate. There's nothing in the article that asserts simply owning the LDs is a crime. The Mint. et al., assert that using them as currency is a crime.

Please don't add links to blogs or to sites which sell products., per WP:EL. -Will Beback · † · 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you will ruthlessly delete anything that disputes what is stated by the mint (eg the blog links that someone else put on the page, and which you deleted, and which I merely restored.) You insist on having the Mints allegations there, but remove any opportunity to dispute them.

This is consistent with your clearly stated POV against the Liberty Dollar. (Note your comments on this page, your assertion that it is Fraudulent, etc.)

The clear goal here is to change the POV of the article from being Neutral. So, either present both sides, or make the comments neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.61.49.45 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your talk page posts, by typing four "~" symbols. If you are a regular contributor you should register a free username. Regarding your issues, we have policies and guidelines for content. Yes, content which doesn't meet our policies may be removed. We certainly want to have NPOV article. We have a link to the reply to the Mint assertion. If there are other reliable sources we can use to improve the article they're welcome. -Will Beback · † · 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooooops

Oops, editor RVJ caught my error; I had erroneously inserted the word "organization" into certain verbiage in the article. I hadn't noticed that the verbiage had leeeetle bitty quotation marks around it. I'm not supposed to be changing material in a direct quotation. Thanks to editor RVJ for catching that and reverting it. Uh, I gotta start wearing these reading glasses more. Yours, Famspear 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn straight it's under attack

Only Government issued money is legal tender. The US government exclusive licence on money means that only its currency is legal tender for all debts . . .

This article is disgusting self-serving commercial spam for modern-day gold bug speculators. Dogru144 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's one viewpoint, and we should be sure to include it as well. Likewise we should include, in moderation, some material that might seem promotional. I added back most of the external links because they're relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Subunits

It's not clear to me why subunits "dime", "cent", and "mill" have appeared in the article's infobox, these are correct subunits for the United States Dollar but the Liberty Dollar has no subunits. I seem to remember von NotHaus being of an opinion derived from this thing:

No private corporation, banking association, firm, or individual shall make, issue, circulate or pay any note, check, memorandum, token, or other obligation, for a less sum than one dollar, intended to circulate as money or to be received or used in lieu of lawful money of the United States.… ---Act of Congress, 12 Statutes at Large, 592, July 17, 1862

[6]

Presumably the decimal digits of the Electronic Liberty Dollar balance are fractions of a Liberty Dollar (which is itself 1/20th troy ounce of silver), rather than being "cent[s]". —AltiusBimm 21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Four liberty collage.jpg

Image:Four liberty collage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

General copyedit

Dear editors: I have made quite a few changes in presentation, mainly to enhance clarity, hopefully without changing the meaning. Famspear 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification in article about legality?

I'm confused - what makes the Liberty Dollar different or "more illegal" than, say, a check, gift card, credit card, etc., etc? I mean, I could go buy a gift card for $X (US) and use it at select places that accept that gift card or I could buy Liberty Dollars for that same amount and use it at select places that accept Liberty Dollars, right? What's the difference between Liberty Dollars and a Wooden Nickel? Also, someone give me one of those Ron Paul Dollars. I can't afford the price they're going for on eBay. ;) TheUncleBob (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A check isn't money, it is an authorization to your bank to transfer money from your account to the holder of the check. A gift card isn't money either, it's pre-paying for goods or services.--RLent (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor TheUncleBob: This may already be posted here or in the article somewhere, but the website for the United States Mint states:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 486, it is a Federal crime to utter or pass, or attempt to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money except as authorized by law. According to the NORFED website, "Liberty merchants" are encouraged to accept NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions and offer them as change in sales transactions of merchandise or services. Further, NORFED tells "Liberty associates" that they can earn money by obtaining NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions at a discount and then can "spend [them] into circulation." Therefore, NORFED’s "Liberty Dollar" medallions are specifically intended to be used as current money in order to limit reliance on, and to compete with the circulating coinage of the United States. Consequently, prosecutors with the United States Department of Justice have concluded that the use of NORFED’s "Liberty Dollar" medallions violates 18 U.S.C. § 486.

See [7] (bolding added by Famspear).

The key concept seems to be whether people who use Liberty Dollars "intend" to use them as "current money" within the meaning of section 486. (Just as an aside, you will notice that this appears to be a separate issue from whether the coins are intended to be used as legal tender for the satisfaction of antecedent debts.) There is no law similar to section 486 that would criminalize the use of checks as money, etc.

If users say that they don't intend the Liberty Dollars to be used as current money, that probably is not legally determinative (merely saying that won't necessarily avoid criminal liability, if any). If some people say, Oh, we're using the Liberty Dollars for "barter" and not as "money" -- again, merely saying that also probably is not determinative. I haven't researched the case law under section 486, and I express no opinion one way or the other (at least not right now) as to whether making or using Liberty Dollars is a crime. Maybe we can locate more sources and figure out a way to convey both sides of the argument more extensively in the article. A Wikipedia article itself cannot take a formal position one way or the other as to which side is correct, as you know. Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how using the Liberty Dollar for "current money" is different than using Gift Cards or such though... (Except for the fact that the "coins" are made of gold and silver, whereas Gift Cards are plastic... but if I were to pick which one I'd rather have, it'd be the Gold/Silver!) You're right though, we'll just have to see how this plays out in court. TheUncleBob (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor TheUncleBob: Yeah, but when we're talking about gift cards, aren't we generally talking about something issued by a store -- where you basically can use it only at that store (or in that chain of stores, if it's a chain)? In the case of a gift card, it's really something you have already purchased - it's as though you've prepaid for merchandise but you haven't decided what you want to buy yet -- with the proviso that you're giving the card to someone else and letting that person choose what he or she wants to buy. And gift cards are not generally re-used. Once you redeem it at the store, it's cancelled. (I know that the Best Buy chain stores use plastic gift cards that can be re-used, but the store still has to add new value to a card and re-issue it to make it work.)

With a check, it's closer to -- but still not the same as -- "currency," because (again) the check doesn't get re-used. It fairly quickly ends up at the drawee bank, where it's cancelled.

With a credit card, obviously it's not close to currency at all. When you use a credit card, you are literally borrowing from the issuer of the credit card (generally a bank). The issuer is making a loan to you. You pay the issuer off in a few weeks, when you receive the credit card bill (or you let it ride and accumulate contractual interest -- another sure sign that you have incurred a debt).

By contrast, with Federal Reserve notes, you aren't borrowing anything, and you aren't ordering a bank somewhere to pay the payee by reducing the balance of any bank account, and you aren't restricted as to where you can spend them (contrasting to the gift card from Best Buy, which generally can be used only at Best Buy).

It will be interesting to see what charges, if any, come out of the recent seizure with respect to the Liberty Dollar. Famspear (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How Bernard von NotHaus views his Liberty Dollars

On the legal issues raised above, and at the risk of repeating other materials, here's what Bernard von NotHaus himself says on his web site about his Liberty Dollars:

Liberty Dollars are a proven and profitable currency that protects and grows the purchasing power of your money!

[ . . . ]

The Liberty Dollar is the second-most popular and the fastest-growing currency in America! It's backed by gold and silver instead of being backed by national debt like our familiar US dollars. When you hold the Liberty Dollar, you own silver. When you give this REAL money to someone as payment, they now own silver. Pretty neat, huh?

[ . . . ]

If someone gave you a choice between a stack of ordinary ten-dollar bills and a stack of ten-dollar bills that were printed on the back with a coupon for 5 gallons of gasoline, good at any gas station in the country, which would you choose?

The first stack is just dollar bills. The second stack is also dollar bills, or if gas prices go up, you can use the back of the bills and fill your tank.

You'd have to be crazy to take the first stack! Why not get the benefits of a negotiable currency coupled with the redeemability for a useful commodity, in this case, gasoline? If gas prices go up, you win while everyone else complains about the high cost of gas! If prices don't rise, you still have your ten-dollar bills!

Liberty Dollars are backed by silver. You can use the face value on the front like cash - or redeem it for silver as specified on the back. Silver is a valuable commodity whose price has been going up! Silver is used in photography, jewelry, electronics, and industrial production. You may not use silver yourself, but there's a worldwide market for it! Simply by choosing a more valuable money, REAL money, you can profit!

Best of all, since the Liberty Dollar is a free market currency, you can actually get it at a discount when you become a Liberty Associate and make money when you place it into circulation!

[ . . . ]

The Liberty Dollar is private, inflation proof REAL money that is devoid of inflation and debt. It's a currency of the people, for the people, and by the people.

[ . . . ]

Just as FedEx brought competition to the Post Office and it became incredibly successful, the Liberty Dollar emulates the same model by offering an inflation proof currency. Now you can become incredibly successful too.

The Liberty Dollar brings free enterprise to the creation of money [ . . . ]

--Bernard von NotHaus, from: [8] (bolding added by Famspear), as downloaded on 20 November 2007.

Now, here's the language of the law again:

Whoever [ . . . ] 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 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

See 18 U.S.C. § 486 (bolding added by Famspear). Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: I just thought of something. In the quotations above (or in other places in the web site or other publications), is von NotHaus referring to the paper versions of Liberty Dollars, or to the coin versions, or to both? Section 486 applies only to coins. Other statutory provisions may apply to paper. Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like he's talking about the paper bills - after all, aren't the coins themselves made out of silver and gold? The quotes above talk about redeeming your Liberty Dollars for silver - if you have coins made out of silver, why would you redeem them for silver? TheUncleBob (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlike most other?

The article claims that unlike most other alternative currencies, Liberty Dollars and Phonex Dollars are backed by a commodity. I added a cite need to this part because the article gives 4 examples of alternative currencies. Of there, the only example which isn't backed by commodity is Ithaca Hours. So the claim 'unlike most other' is fairly circumspect and definetely needs a cite Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)