Claude,
> there is one major element that characterizes "derivatives", and it
> is leverage.
Many derivatives afford leverage. But that is not an essential or
necessary characteristic.
> If you use the pure definition of a "derivative", which is "a bi-lateral
> contract whose value derives f
Bob,
> > No. I only included the "under certain circumstances" qualifier so
> > that people would not introduce an irrelevancy by objecting that they
> > couldn't redeem a 1oz coin. But then Bob did it anyway!
> >
> > > that makes it not-storage/ownership/non-backyness?
Lyris buster.
> > They
> The weird thing (to me) is, there are now FAR
> more ways to get lots more kinds of physical gold for your e-gold
> than there ever were in the "days of the coins," and to me the
> only other difference is semantic, between "get" and "redeem" I
> end up with a piece of yellow metal in my hand i
JP,
> {Everyone seems sick of this dissuccion, especially Craig! :)
Yea. :) But I still have a couple of things to say.
> Very often "ownership" rights are quite vague ..
There can be ambiguous situations but the *concept* of ownership is
not vague at all. It is the right of use and disp
JP,
> However, IMHO, you're wrong that the fact that it is a derivative is
> the clincher.
>
> >Both are transferable *derivatives* of gold. That is, they are
> >contractual obligations whose value derives from that of gold. The
> >principal contractual commitment is the obligation to redeem e
Bob wrote:
>
> Craig Spencer wrote:
>
> > Both are transferable *derivatives* of gold. That is, they are
> > contractual obligations whose value derives from that of gold.
>
> I'm not so sure about that Craig. A derivative's value is a function
> of
JP,
I have to disagree with you and Bob.
> e-gold is just a service that stores gold for you and charges you
> an annual fee to do so.
Ken Griffith and SnowDog have explained why you are wrong rather
thoroughly. So there is little need for me to repeat them. I will
only say how I disagree w
Ah JP,
> I can't believe how much I missed it! I am not particularly a keen
> gambler but TGC has that CLEAN, PURE SMELL OF CAPITALISM.
>
> To be able to honestly play around with a few centigrams of HONEST,
> REAL MONEY -- GOLD -- with and against other burnished-pure
> capitalists, is a fre
> This is what made the RealGoldLotto unique: it used numbers drawn from the
> UK National Lottery. This ensures honesty with the numbers. The only other
> thing needed is a published list of numbers selected by customers BEFORE the
> drawing. Otherwise, there's no way to ensure that the payouts
"James M. Ray" wrote:
>
> At 11:21 PM +1000 08/05/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Gold is set to explode up or down in the next few days ... heavy!
> >
> >What do you think Bob?
>
> Hey JP! Can you (or Bob?) tell us again how the charts tell us this?
It requires faith (plus a ouji board and a
Julian,
> I am looking at what appears to be some very concrete evidence of
> robust HYIP activity in the e-gold world:
I doubt that anyone is going to deny the truth of that! Or that
other, more commercial, activity is very limited.
I do think, as I have argued, that there is convincing ev
Julian,
Bear in mind that this is all guess work. The facts we actually know
are
few and while they may suggest our conclusions they by no means prove
them. Our conclusions are certain to be wrong. The only question is
whether or not they are completely wrong.
> 1. How many of the funded ac
Julian,
> 2. More generally, what portion of the total value and number of daily
> e-gold spends would you guess is generated by the HYIP economy (cash-flow
> games, investments, investment advice, etc.)?
I have not made any great study of it but ... based on the self-reported
"membership" cl
JP,
I was about to write and ask the list about this myself. I have been
sent this two copies of this kind of message in the last couple days.
I got another one a week or two ago about the time someone else on the
list posted about recieveing it.
> >Hi! How are you?
> >
> >I send you this file
Claude,
> I dopn't know to what extent this is all true?
> We certainly don't have these sort of thing in Canada (I hope).
Canada is better in some ways, worse in others.
Canada has lacked a Bill of Rights for most of its history and so
has never had the established respect for individual ri
Claude,
> But assuming you are right, I am sure
> you will admit that if only the shareholders and/or officers are in the
> USA when everything else is outside the USD, the governement
> has a really hard task shutting down the operation. Them officers
> must be proven guilty of something.
How
Claude,
> > 1) If the corporation is closely held (any US shareholder having more
> > than 10% of the stock; a so called "Controled Foreign Corporation") it
> > will not even acknowledge that the corporation exists. By US law they
> > are NOT different persons.
>
> Are you sure about that? Can
Ken,
> The fact that many market makers are now offering to pay YOU above spot to
> buy your e-gold suggests that my prediction is coming true. The price of
> e-gold is now higher than the price of gold, and it isn't just exchange
> fees. It holds its value at that price.
>
> Any comments?
I
Claude,
"C. Cormier - Ormetal Inc." wrote:
> > It most certainly does matter. If the major shareholders, officers,
> > employees or assets of a GBC are in the US (or otherwise subject to
> > the control of the US government) then they may be threatened or held
> > hostage by the US government.
"C. Cormier - Ormetal Inc." wrote:
> It doesn't really matter if some shareholders of the GBC's issuers
> are in the USA or anywhere in the world. What counts is the
> corporate identity of the issuer, its corporate governance, its
> partners, and its product.
It most certainly does matter. If
Of interest:
http://www.epmex.com/
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JP,
You are right but you miss the main point.
> so called 'insider trading' is a consensual crime: like drug use,
> there is no reason for it to be illegal.
Insider trading is not at all a crime (consensual or otherwise). It is
the whole point of having markets. Markets serve as a means of
tho.
Best,
Craig
***
Craig Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archi
Samuel,
> The article also conjures up the bogeyman of the "trade deficit," which is
> an accounting gimmick used to scare the economically illiterate,
Exactly so.
> since the existence of a trade deficit using honest accounting is
> mathematically impossible.
Well, not quite. Gifts and loa
Viking Coder wrote:
>
> > Eric, is the REVERSE possible, can you somehow have people pick up
> > cash at banks when they sell e-gold?
>
> Isn't that usually called a bank wire? :)
It used to be (about 15 years ago) possible to wire money to any
bank "for pick up" by anyone (ie a non-customer).
Claude,
> > They do say that it is in "allocated" storage. What that means
> > probably depends on the terms of business of the vault used. Those of
> > The Perth Mint are probably typical.
>
> Yes... but it does not stop the firm to create a encumbrance on the
> gold. Allocated only means "
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Ken Griffith wrote:
> If e-bullion denominates the accounts in dollars, what happens when the
> price of gold goes up or down? If the dollar weakens, do you have less
> gold in your account? It doesn't make sense to me.
The accounts are NOT denominated in dollars. The bal
Claude,
> So far I see only e-gold and GoldMoney that cleary and explicitely say
> that the gold is free and clear.
They do say that it is in "allocated" storage. What that means probably
depends on the terms of business of the vault used. Those of The Perth
Mint are probably typical.
> A
Dale,
I neglected to reply to your last paragraph.
> An interesting dilema for e-gold is "Whose definitions are they going to
> use?" Why? How are they going to be implemented? Where? At what cost
> and especially "By whom?"
E-gold is an independent business owned and run by responsible a
Dale,
You pose an important question to understand and answer. But
fortunately
the answer, rightly understood, is not a difficult one.
> > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is
> > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the
> > crimina
I was interested to see on the Web of Trust page about path servers
http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/pathserver
that I gave earlier that someone has recently gotten a path server
going again.
http://the.earth.li/~noodles/pathfind.html
As an illustration of its operation, looking for a connectio
Julian Morrison wrote:
> a) If you do business with unidentified people, you can be dragged into
> their crimes, you can be swindled, and you can help crime in general
> prosper.
Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is
that they are criminals. Identification may
Michael Moore wrote:
> this has been an ongoing problem in commerce and banking and part of
> the answer (not the right one perhaps) has been to introduce the 'know
> your customer' policy. Unfortunately this also tends to cut across the
> rights of the individual. So the problem is where do
SnowDog wrote:
>
> > Very cogent analysis. So, in view of this, what can be done to
> > differentiate the crooks from the honest people? The difficulty
> > arises because both are using the system in the same ways for
> > superficially similar purposes. The crooks hide in this
> > ambiguity
Viking Coder wrote:
> Crooks are using e-gold for the exact same reason that legitimate user do.
> The ability to do world-wide commerce without fear of the transaction
> being cancelled. Legitimate users don't want to deal with fraudulent or
> boucing payments while crooks don't want to deal wit
Eric,
> > For market makers to try to become thought police does not do this.
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately, Law Enforcement does not view it this way. The
> act of completing an exchange for a criminal (even if you do not KNOW it
> is a criminal) can be used against your business by Law Enforcem
Eric,
Most of the things you have said are true but you are still confusing
different things.
> My point to all of this is that if you honestly believe that there is
> ZERO risk associated with outexchanges, you are wrong. There ARE risks
> associated with outexchanges. Not the risk of having
Eric,
> >There is zero risk in outexchanging E-Gold and you have to get it from
> > somewhere.
>
>I must disagree with you on this point. Technically, there is no
> *immediate* risk on outexchanges because the transaction is non-reputiable,
> agreed. However, due to the large numbers of sc
Original Message
Subject: Re: Gold Bay Auctions Has Launched!
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:25:38 GMT
From: "admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Craig Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References:
We don't have a difficulty understanding it, but we are catering to
Original Message
Subject: Re: Gold Bay Auctions Has Launched!
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:26:30 -0400
From: Craig Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References:
admin wrote:
>
> We made it in USD so it was easier for the average user t
Gold Bay Auctions wrote:
> Our site is at www.gold-bay.com
>
> We have developed an online auction venue that accepts e-gold exclusively.
Why is it then that your fees are denominated in dollars?
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a bla
better and as simply without
it if given a little thought.
CCS
***
Craig Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
On Sun
> > "The only one who is currently an "ether gold" is OSGold."
> >
> > If they are not 100% backed, then I fully agree with you, but where is the
> > evidence. It seems to me that we just don't know what OSGold is since they
> > have not disclosed it.
>
> They have. They made a proud, high-f
JP,
> >> I didn't get one percent "response", I was able to establish (through
> >> careful checking) that only one person even happened to see the
> >> ("secret') message.
> >
> >I was going to ask how you got that info. How did you "check"?
>
> "I" "sent" "emails"
How were you were able to s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quite simply, how many people do you think look at those comments?
>
> The answer is a dismal amount .. it's a non starter.
Just like banner adds.
> Your REACH is the number of people that look at it .. your number of
> impressions.
>
> Basically "no-one" looks at
> >Autospend 1 mg to each user in numeric sequence and put your message
> >in the memo field.
>
> Good idea, but I tried it already.
>
> I used a pool of known e-gold accounts to test how many people would
> read the message. Only one did out of ~ 80 tests.
You asked for a way to reach e-gold
Julian Morrison wrote:
>
> So, e-gold, howsabout a "notify me when I get paid" toggle in the user
> options?
Interestingly, I suggested this for other commercial reasons some time
ago. Namely, as an alternative to the SCI for merchants and/or
customers
that prefer not to use it. If I recall co
Steve Foerster wrote:
>
> JP wrote:
>
> < kilogram gold reward to anyone who can state how to reach e-gold users.
> State it.>>
>
> Autospend 1 mg to each user in numeric sequence and put your message
> in the memo field.
JP, I think you owe the man 50kg.
CCS
---
You are currently subscri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> http://www.e-gold.com/stats.html
The velocity is much higher than it has been for months. The number of
spends
used to about equal the number of account accesses; now it is suddenly
double.
Does anyone have any insight into what is going on? Is there some new
sc
Forgive my ignorance... but how do I do that?
CCS
Julian Morrison wrote:
>
> Luc Van den Borre wrote:
> >
> > There's an article on Slashdot right now:
> >
>
> If you support my stance on the right to launder money, please vote up
> this slashdot comment:
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid
George Matyjewicz wrote:
> if you want to deal with the court you need a lawyer, or with
> investors you need a CPA.
In other words, the government has deprived us of choice and given
a monopoly to a guild.
> >Licenses are just an anti-competition thing. They certainly don't
> >mean you're
Julian Morrison wrote:
> Also I recall the flap before global warming was fear of a new *ice age*
> being due roundabout now. Be amusing if one filled into the hole of the
> other so to speak :-)
The notable fact about this is that it was the SAME people that were
touting "the coming ice age" t
> Think of it as a Pascal's wager kind of thing - maybe you'll be
> "wrong" trying to do your part to combat global warming, but conserving
> energy and promoting alternative fuels can be its own reward - and if
> you're right it helps in the big picture too!
Environmentalism is a "chicken little
> You need to get together with the other poeple who have had $ stolen
> by "gold mine".
>
> For instance, try to see a pattern in the time of day the money was
> stolen. At least then it can be guessed where in the world they are.
It seems to me that one of the few things that could certainly
Jim,
> I think the way to win over socialists
I think your goal is impossible. Socialists hate gold more than you
love it! (1) It offends their moral sense that people should use
or value something which they "know" is worthless ("you can't eat
gold"). (2) They know their enemy: a means b
Julian Morrison wrote:
>
> Craig Spencer wrote:
> >
> > > In that spirit, I understand very well that they need money to support the
> > > Party, but I don't think they need it until 2006. I'm going to send them a
> > > post-dated check--dated
> In that spirit, I understand very well that they need money to support the
> Party, but I don't think they need it until 2006. I'm going to send them a
> post-dated check--dated 15 April 2006--along with a letter explaining why.
>
> I encourage others to do the same.
Another feature of the "cu
Bob wrote:
> Usually people give up degrees of freedom to the politicians and
> bureaubrats when they are promised/given stolen wealth.
Perhaps that IS what Tristan means!
> At some point the wealth creators start leaving the legal jurisdiction.
Increasing the politicians have been trying to
Tristan,
> >Yet for some reason that escapes me you still seem to think there is
> >some sort of trade off between freedom and wealth.
>
> There is, with the current state of the world.
Why do you think that the state of the world is that there is a trade
off between freedom and wealth?Th
Tristan,
So far you have said you don't mean either of the following.
1) "unfreedom produces wealth"
2) "wealth causes less freedom"
Yet for some reason that escapes me you still seem to think there is
some sort of trade off between freedom and wealth.
> Rather, I mean to say, if the averag
Tristan,
> >So you envision a situation in which some means of producing convenience
> >or wealth inadvertently results in degrading liberty?
>
> Well, let me draw some parallels. The Boston Massacre involved just a few
> people. The taxes Great Britain took from the colonists is nowhere near
>
JP,
> (It could be that on other planets with other intelligent species,
> they did NOT discover this, ie, it could be for other intelligent
> species that socialism works.
I beg to differ. It has nothing to with location (which planet) or
with biolaogical identity (which species). Capitalis
Tristan,
> Perhaps this is where the confusion is arising from. When I say "willing
> to give away more of their freedom for it" I certainly do not mean that
> giving away freedom results in wealth being produced.
OK.
> The key word here is "willing". If technology produces convenience at the
> > Wealth is produced through labor.
>
> Nah -- it's not like you to be wrong Viking! :)
>
> Labor is *shit*. It has nothing to do with wealth. Wealth is ideas.
>
> No one ever has gotten rich through labor.
>
> Wealth is only produced in one simple way -- human thought.
I was willing to
Trustan,
> If you had read what I wrote carefully, I said: "people are willing
> to give up more freedom, if it means they can be more wealthy".
>
> In other words, people who can have what people in the 16th, 17th, etc
> and even the beginning of the 20th century didn't have, are willing to
>
VC:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Viking Coder wrote:
> > > > Do you really think that slavery produces wealth?
> > >
> > > Yeah, but not for the slaves.
> >
> > I used my words carefully.
>
> I know. I was just playing around.
OK. Its hard to know.
> > While slave labor may produce some wealth
VC:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Viking Coder wrote:
> > Do you really think that slavery produces wealth?
>
> Yeah, but not for the slaves.
I used my words carefully. While slave labor may produce some
wealth which some slave holders may well acquire, slavery itself
is not **productive** of more w
Tristan,
> >Hell, serfs didn't have as much taken from them as Americans do now.
> >However, Heritage's index is not the only one out there. I forget
> >who puts out the other one.
>
> Serfs also didn't have anywhere near the amount of wealth the average
> (and poor) Americans do today. So, I g
> Far be it for me to promote something other than E-Gold, but paypal is now
> offering a MasterCard/Debit card on their accounts.
To get it you have to pay over 2.2% on all incoming payments.
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank em
Many thanks to Sean Dickens, Mark S. Ohberg and James M. Ray for
indulging my paranoia. I feel better now.
CCS
***
Craig Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Thanks Sidd,
I learned something. I have been wondering how the home page logon
on the GoldMoney site could be secure since it is not an https page.
CCS
***
Craig Spencer
Steve,
Thanks for your reply.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Steve Foerster wrote:
> CCS wrote:
>
> <>
>
> I know quite a bit actually. :)
>
> < work.>>
>
> Both are working perfectly for me. I'm running MSIE 5.5 on Windows 2000.
Same here.
> <>
>
> What makes you say so? They both use https.
Claude,
> > They are not the same thing. The rights you have concerning 1gg and a
> > gram of e-gold are different.
>
> There are indeed differences. But do these differences affect their
> value which is based on a gram of gold?
>
> As an example, is a gram of e-gold worth less or more than a
JP,
> >> 1 goldgram and 1 gram of e-gold are the same thing -- one gram of the
> >> element gold, stored for you.
> >
> >They are not the same thing. The rights you have concerning 1gg and a
> >gram of e-gold are different.
>
> Very true --- BUT --- they are also VERY CLOSE.
Just so!
I would
JP,
> 1 goldgram and 1 gram of e-gold are the same thing -- one gram of the
> element gold, stored for you.
They are not the same thing. The rights you have concerning 1gg and a
gram of e-gold are different.
> A clearning house promotes solidity of each bank (if one bank is
> going bad, mo
> > Craig Spencer wrote:
> > It does you no monetary good that the prices differ (no matter how fast
> > you can buy and sell) unless there is a way you can convert gg to e-gold
> > and back.
>
> Anybody who does a conversion between one GBC and another will hav
Claude,
> OK you end up with a different quantity of grams of gold
> currencies.
Yes, but *different* and inequivalent currencies.
> > Niether e-gold nor gg are gold itself but contracts
> > that give the owner certain rights having to do with gold.
>
> I think that is where I will disagr
Claude,
> Well if you have everything in place, you can sell e-gold and obtain
> CAD or USD at a price X and immediately turn around and buy gg
> at a price of Y with thos some CAD or USD. You end up with a
> different wuantity of grams. Isn't it arbitrage ?
No, it is not. What you end up with
Claude,
> But in reality, prices are often different by a few bucks... and if one
> is very quick and has the good connections to move in and out..
> arbitrage is possible.
It does you no monetary good that the prices differ (no matter how fast
you can buy and sell) unless there is a way you can
JP,
> Is abritrage possible between goldgrams and e-gold grams?
You could try to make money trading either at different prices people
might offer (against anything people would trade for them). This is
what you are already doing with Coconut.
But TRUE arbitrage between e-gold and gg (or anythi
"R. A. Hettinga" wrote:
>
> At 12:20 AM -0400 on 5/25/01, CCS wrote:
>
> > this was not exactly true. The cryptocraphic protocols of digital
> > bearer instruments certainly make them more secure but there still
> > is vulnerability due to the need for communication with a central
> > clearing
> The other long term solution is to completely abandon account based systems
> and switch to digital bearer instruments or "digital cash". These can be
> stored on the users hard drive in an encrypted form, or stored on a smart
> card, or stored on a zip disk, offline where hackers can't reach
> Here is ANOTHER CAR photo - this one from England.
>
> http://bananagold.com/cars.html
>
> Good one - a VW bug.
Would that be and e-gold bug?
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elwyn Jenkins wrote:
> Who gave you such mis-information?
See previous, quoted message (from SnowDog) in thread.
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Viking Coder wrote:
>
> > One Groupe International wrote
> >
> > We are backed by
> >
> > 50% physical gold
> > 50% Gold Certificates
> > 50% Cash
> >
>
> Why bother with a reserve so much more expensive and so much less reliable
> than 100% hard metal?
What does it mean that they are "backed".
I would like to elaborate on why I think it is unlikely that this
good advice will be followed.
Craig Spencer wrote:
>
> Julian Morrison wrote:
> >
> > I suggest you erase your listing page entirely,
>
> That would clearly be the best thing to do. JPM has warned before
Julian Morrison wrote:
>
> I suggest you erase your listing page entirely,
That would clearly be the best thing to do. JPM has warned before that
the listing page is stupid and dangerous. The chances of e-gold taking
this advise are nil.
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list a
Steven wrote:
>
> Just humor me, if you will. I'm new here.
> Perhaps we are not speaking the same language.
> I'm talking about legitimate banking with high returns.
> I'm not sure what this negative feedback is based on.
HYIP are not legitimate banking. They are easily identified scams. You
Steven wrote:
>
> Care to elaborate on that HYIP reference ?
> How many have you tried and what were their names.
This is amazing. I cannot decide between (1) this is just bull or (2) a
genuine inability to think.
If it is taken seriously then it explains a lot!
Seriously making such an arg
Ben Legume wrote:
> by the likes of Count Moriarty and Grypthe-Thingee>
Alternate picture: do you remember the little creatures called
shmoos (from Li'l Abner) shaped like pork chops who loved jumping
into frying pans and being eaten?
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as:
Chuck,
I was simply offering analysis of claims made in the light of recent
events and statistics.
> What people use osgold for is no more or less concern that what people
> use e-gold for or standard reserve for or goldmoney for.
Any criticism of "what people use [it] for" was your own conc
Julian,
> > You are entirely right. As I think I indicated: it is all a deliberate
> > deception.
>
> Cuation here: this may be deliberate or semi-deliberate deception, but
> it isn't conspiracy.
No, it is not a conspiracy. But statism does have a natural logic that
shapes its development (as
Julian Morrison wrote:
>
> All the fuss covers who's under attack here. The law enforcement folks
> know perfectly well that without every single transaction worldwide
> numbered, checked, and background-checked, any of the people they're
> using as "boogeyman du jour" can run rings around them.
Julian Morrison wrote:
> Here's my position on this: money laundering is a fundmental natural
> right. It's your damn money and nobody else's business, period.
Your point, properly understood, is inspiring.
But that should not obscure the fact that it IS morally wrong to allow
criminals to prof
Elwin,
> Unfortunately CCS, you have misunderstood the two issues of anti-money
> laundering which requires that financial institutions are disallowed from
> maintaining "anonymous records" with that of the whole status of "privacy".
> In fact, there is much on privacy and anti-money laundering t
Elwyn Jenkins wrote:
> This is absolutely incorrect regarding the "abolition of financial privacy".
> The EU Directive is not focused on the abolition of financial privacy. It is
> focussed on financial anonymity.
It is not a matter of an EU Directive. It is the policy promulgated by
the Briti
Elwyn Jenkins wrote:
> British Virgin Islands ... is a British Dependency. It has a constitution and
> democratically elected parliament. The BVI is politically and economically
> sound and the Government has virtual autonomy in its decision-making.
In the past British Dependencies have been al
> >> 1. Visa preferably, or otherwise Mastercard. Not some "own brand" card
> >> scheme.
For ATM only use this is not necessary.
> 3. You do not need to go anonymous to be free from legal regquirements to
> help out the nosy Feds. What you need is a card that is out of the USA
> jurisdiction, an
>Kid, unfortunately and sadly moving offshore offers zero to little
>actual protection.
>
>The short story: the US Government is so powerful, you're fucked.
Perhaps so in the long run.
>An "offshore server gasp" is a nice PR line, that's about it.
But if Gold-Age had been physically offshore
> The right to exclude other's from nature's benefits is a government
> granted right and it has economic value. Land titles are government
> created legal rights to the exclusive use of natural resources. Land and
> natural resources are prior to human employment and use and to economic
> product
101 - 200 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
