Talk:Liberty Dollar

This article was nominated for deletion on Feb 17 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

• Talk:Liberty Dollar/Archive1
• Talk:Liberty Dollar/Archive2

Fair use rationale for Image: Liberty Dollar.jpeg

Image:Liberty Dollar.jpeg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would like me to do so, I would be happy to contact the owners of this image about a specific permission to include it here. Easily done. Planetaryjim (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to Bernard von NotHaus last week, and he wrote back with approval to use the image on this article. So, I could post the text of his e-mail, if that's the done thing? Or whatever. I don't think he's placing the image in the public domain, but he does consent to its use. Is that adequate for our purposes? Or is something more formal needed? Planetaryjim (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The rules for use of copyrighted works on Wikipedia are complicated. Other than WP:fair use, which is very limited, most images should be released under the GFDL, which allows for unlimited use in the future by either commercial or non-commerical users, though the owner retains the copyright and the requirement for attribution. The whole policy can be found at WP:COPYRIGHT. If the owner of the image still consents to its release, then he should use the text at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#Declaration of consent for all enquiries and send the email to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". Let me know if you have any other questions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange claim in the intro

From the very first line: "The Liberty Dollar is a not a currency but, an alternative means of trade embodied in minted metal pieces (referred to as rounds)...". This is bizarre - in what sense is it not a currency? I've read the rest of the article, and Liberty Dollars seem to fit the definition of currency in practically every sense of the term. The intro described them as such, before it was edited on January 1st by User:67.191.123.39; I think I will revert it back, and unless anyone can provide a convincing argument that Liberty Dollars are not, in fact, a currency, it should stay that way. Terraxos (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-date template

I put the template there because- and maybe I'm out of line here- it seems that the FBI raid and subsequent freezing of Liberty dollar activity is at-odds with the claims of transaction rates. Most of the article seems to be written in present-tense, as if Liberty dollar issuance and transactions are still going on. Is that true? johnpseudo 05:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we know that they've been permanently shut down? I'd gotten the impression that there was a raid and material was confiscated, but that the business was intending to proceed pending some decision in the courts. If it's been shut down permanently or even indefinitely then the article should be re-written. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have particular information that the Liberty Dollar is not shut down. They are currently marketing through freemarketmoney.org so I have added a link in external links to that effect. Planetaryjim (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Holding US Pennies compared to Liberty Copper Dollar

The paragraph in the Criticism section goes on to explain that the melted metal value in 100 US Pennies is worth more than the melted metal value of a Liberty Copper Dollar, which is proven fact! The copper and zinc weight and value in 100 cents far exceeds the value of the 1 ounce of copper in a Liberty Copper Dollar. So to finish the article by saying the actual bullion value of 1 penny is considerably less than the value marked on the coin is completely one sided and only serves to mislead the reader. Yes, the melted value of 100 pennies may be worth three quarters of the face value. But, the melted value of the Liberty Copper Dollar is only worth a quarter of the face value. To clarify that one more time, if you melted down 100 US pennies, the scrap metal would be worth more than if you melted down a Liberty Copper Dollar. JosephLondon (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That could well be true, depending on the prices of the metals. However unless the criticism has been made in a reliable source we shouldn't use primary sources as a basis for an original argument. Since there are currently no citations of people who've criticized the LD for this anomaly, I'm going to delete it as a violation of WP:OR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of interesting (and quite cogent) criticisms of the Liberty Dollar. I'm curious whether there would be any interest in any of the responses to these various criticisms from the Liberty Dollar organisation? For example, the Vin Suprynowicz assertion that the Liberty Dollar is a multi-level marketing scheme is really quite silly. Are responses to criticisms allowed? Or is this article intended simply to present a slanted view of the subject matter? In which case the validity of the note at the top that the article lacks neutrality would seem quite clear. What are we striving for here, people? I see nothing wrong with publishing every available criticism. Is there anything wrong with publishing any of the available responses? If this article is striving for trenchant criticisms on every conceivable basis of the Liberty Dollar, it does an excellent job. On the other hand, if it is striving for neutrality, that has gone missing. If I were to do a re-write on the article, I would not wish to leave out anything currently included. However, I would like to see responses to the criticisms where published responses exist, I would like to see a "current status" section since the status of this article's subject seems to change quite often, and I would like to see the article somewhat better organised. Naturally, I'm happy to do this kind of work, but there seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding this article, so I don't want to just leap in and start making changes that would quickly be reverted away. One thing rather obviously missing at this point is any discussion of the $50 base and the new text "MSRP" on the current designs of the silver pieces. Planetaryjim (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has had a couple of re-writes and re-organizations. I'd encourage anyone wishing to do another to review the history of the article before undertaking yet another. As for criticisms and responses, they should all be based on reliable sources. We can't come up with criticisms or rebuttals on our own. I don't know if a "current status" section is needed, but we should keep this up-to-date as the situation changes. So far as I can tell, little has changed since the raid. New products can be mentioned, but this isn't a sales brochure so we should avoid anything promotional. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at the history. Probably worth my time to get the sense of where things stand compared to where they've been.

There's actually quite a bit of information since the raid, which you seem to think is the end of the line. On the one hand, the raid is being contested in a 41G filing by Stientjes and Pliske LLC of St. Louis on behalf of "Shelter Systems, LLC" which holds the warehouse contract for the paper and digital warehouse receipts. Since no one has been charged with any crime, there is good reason to suppose that the raid would be reviewed with some alarm by the judiciary - one generally gets property charged with being proceeds of a crime when there is some evidence a crime has been committed.

Another development is that the company has reorganized and is back selling product. It isn't promotional to point out that the products are available. I mean, if GM stopped selling cars, and then went back to selling them after a year, you could include this fact as noteworthy about the GM organisation without being accused of promoting GM cars, right? Or is that mistaken? If anything that connects even vaguely to the current status of the company and products is verboten, then there's no point in contesting the neutrality tag. So, do let me know before I waste our mutual time.

There's also a relationship between this article and other articles on, say, e-gold, Pecunix, GoldMoney, or e-Bullion. There is an entire gold backed and digital warehouse receipt industry. As the author of one of the few comprehensive essays on the industry, back in early 2005, the status report on digital gold found linked from the article on digital gold, I might be able to relate the events described in this article with the government raids on e-gold (April 2007) and e-Bullion (August 2008). But, of course, I get the feeling from the comments and the criticisms that what is wanted here is an article that isn't neutral, but is condemning of anything that is not government issued fiat currency. Planetaryjim (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, so my addition to the external links of a relevant external link has been deleted. Thus, my conclusion that the people who watch this page don't want a neutral or up to date article. If you work to destroy the neutrality and currency of articles in this encyclopedia, shame on you. Planetaryjim (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The only link I see that's been removed recently is to this site: http://www.freemarketmoney.org/. The home page says, in large bold letters, "Buy Your Liberty Dollars Exclusively from Us!!!" Wikipedia isn't in here to provide commercial websites with more traffic. See our guideline on external links: WP:EL. If there is information on the website that is useful and can be verified with reliable sources then why not just add it to the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, exactly. When I go to the General Motors entry a relevant external link is included to their corporate web site where, among other things, they sell product. When I go to the Apple Computers entry, a relevant external link is their corporate web site, where they sell products. Apparently there is some sort of double standard here, where a relevant external link is not allowed. Why is that? The whole point of having external links is to provide more information that is available on that site which is not appropriate to the encyclopedia. I am continuing to assume that you intend to oppress the Liberty Dollar organisation and its associates as much as possible by forbidding updates to this article, by preventing changes, no matter how small, that would conceivably shine a better light, because you, Will Beback, are in fact a horrid monster evil person who intends harm to the Liberty Dollar. Shall we continue in this vein? Or is discussion about your intentions not allowed, now that you have made them clear? Planetaryjim (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The General Motors article does contain a link to http://www.gm.com/. It doesn't contain links to GM dealers. Likewise, this article contains a link to the Liberty Dollar website but not to individual dealers. A list of dealers is on the Liberty Dollar website, so anyone interested in buying their products can find an associate there. Further, it appears that the link you added is to a website in which you have an interest. That is strongly discouraged per WP:EL. Finally, personal attacks on other editors are not allowed and if you continue to post comments like that your editing privileges may be revoked. This is a collaborative project and participants are expected to treated each other with civility. WP:CIVIL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Brilliant Uncirculated Silver American Eagles

I changed the comparison with the price for Brilliant Uncirculated Silver American Eagles to a comparison with Proof American Eagles. The US Mint charges a premium for a polished, mirror-like finish on the proofs, which is almost identical to the finish on the Liberty Dollar, so this comparison is more accurate. Harksaw (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the article on proof coinage, the additional charge is not merely for "a polished, mirror-like finish." The manufacturing process is completely different for proof coinage. The Liberty Dollar, on the other hand, was manufactured with a "proof-like" finish, meaning that it had the mirror-like background, but did not otherwise meet the criteria for being a proof coin. --Joe Sewell (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul speech

Apparently Ron Paul made a speech on the floor of the House that mentioned the raid on Liberty Dollar:

On December 13 2007, Representative Ron Paul introduced the proposed Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 in the U.S. House of Representatives, saying:

"One particular egregious recent example is that of the Liberty Dollar, in which federal agents seized millions of dollars worth of private currency held by a private mint on behalf of thousands of people across the country .... We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar .... I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency."

The purpose of the bill, if enacted, is to legalize the use of currencies — including the Liberty Dollar — that compete with the Federal Reserve's U.S. dollar.

It was removed here:[1], with the edit summary, " Ron Paul has no association with the company." I don't think that the text suggested an association. Representatives routinely introduce legislation to correct what they perceive as problems with the laws of the country. That's their job. Only cynics assume that legislation is introduced just for monetary gain. It does appear that the purpose of the law was to legalize the Liberty Dollar business. It's certainly relevant to mention it, though I wouldn't mind trimming the long quote. Thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering the legal situation in which the company is in, it may be of some interest to reference proposed legislation. However, I agree with you, it would need to be a short reference instead of the lengthy section that was removed. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Commercial bias removed

Parts of the article had no references.

Also, these parts of the article veered into the realm of commercial promotion for the product. Ergo, the parts were deleted. Dogru144 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Current status of legal challenge?

The article doesn't seem to indicate what the current status is of their legal challenges. Some sort of update would be in order. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the current status? Is there any news?   Will Beback  talk  16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I actually came to this article looking for that information. They were raided in November 2007, but it doesn't appear that there is anything new. At least, as far as the official site and the Wikipedia article says. If there is any information regarding either the government's case against the organization, or the organizations class action lawsuit, it would help the article quite a bit. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added the latest on the criminal case, at least as to the criminal charges against Bernard von NotHaus. Famspear (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need another update now. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Eric

Criticisms

Citations are still needed for the which 'critics' are doing the criticizing. I find it hard to believe that an American citizen would confuse a Liberty Dollar with a USD note. The differences are obvious and most citizens are innately aware of what their currency looks like.174.7.89.210 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It certainly needs a citation. If one isn't added soon the assertion should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias or lack of opposite viewpoints

This article only lists cristicisms of the Liberty dollar, as if there are no benefits to using the Liberty dollar. In thsi regard the article is completely Bias and one sided. Why cant the Wikipedia editors add a section below Criticisms, titled Benefits or something, where the benefits of the Liberty dollar are listed as well ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.206.88 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer is, because no editor has yet done so. This is a collaborative project. Feel free to add verifiable material cited to reliable third-party sources. Yworo (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this article has degraded into a rambling news story, not information about the organization & its beliefs. --LanceHaverkamp 18:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk • contribs)

Conviction...

He was convicted. The article could use an update. [2] 71.80.201.39 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's already been updated. Famspear (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge von NotHaus

I'm proposing that Bernard von NotHaus be merged into Liberty Dollar (although I would have thought NORFED would be a better subject), per WP:BLP1E. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Virtually everything in that bio is about Liberty Dollar/NORFED.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Most or all of the Von NotHaus article could be incorporated into the Liberty Dollar article. Famspear (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally disagree and here's why: the Liberty Dollar organization looked & felt far more like a non-profit than a one man show. There were hundreds of contributing members volunteering their time teaching against fiat currency nationwide. BVNH was the founder, and it would be accurate the include that information in the LD article, but they are not one-and-the-same. Quoting from WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." --LanceHaverkamp 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk • contribs)

The event isn't significant, but the individual's role is a large one. Even so, BvNH has nothing notable about him other than what is in this article, making a merge appropriate, even so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - I don't see much evidence that von NotHaus is notable independent of his role with Liberty Dollar. Robofish (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep -It seems to me that BVNH should have a page of his own. It's like saying a one hit wonder like Devo should not have a Whip it page. --Duchamps_comb MFA 01:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

term "Ron Paul Dollar"

As is, it's not clear what the term "Ron Paul Dollar" means. It was once explained, but then subsequently removed. Either should the term be expounded upon again in some form or its mention dropped altogether. (Also, what about Bernard von NotHaus, has sentence still not been passed? Is he in jail?) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)