Home / Federal Reserve / Conterfeiting: A Federal Monopoly
Print Friendly and PDF

Conterfeiting: A Federal Monopoly

Written by John Odermatt on October 18, 2013

One sure-fire way to end up being charged with a felony is by competing with a monopoly that is run by the State.  Crimes against the State are always pursued aggressively and punished to the highest letter of the law. Creating copies of the only approved fiat currency ranks at the top of the list.

The State does not tolerate counterfeiting of Federal Reserve Notes. The creation of competing fiat currencies would lift the veil of magic that cloaks the shady operations of the central bank, and expose the fraudulent system. The masses would quickly realize that the emperor has no clothes. This will be discussed later.

First let’s review a recent case of alleged counterfeiting charges brought against eight suspects in High Point, North Carolina. WFMY News 2 reports the suspects have been charged with two state counts of felony counterfeiting and will probably face federal charges.

When it comes to counterfeiting, the Secret Service almost always gets involved. The federal agency that most people think is primarily tasked with protecting the President and world leaders actually had a different singular focus when founded. The reason the Secret Service was created in 1965, was solely to suppress counterfeiting of U.S. currency.

Before we continue, it is important to define the type of money that is used in the United States and throughout the world. The United States government only accepts Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are fiat money. This means that the government has declared them to be legal tender, despite the fact that they have no intrinsic value and are not backed by gold or silver reserves.

Fiat currency is backed by government force, which means it is backed by the threat of violence. If you want to test this fundamental fact, try paying your taxes in anything other than FRNs. Eventually an employee of the State will show up at your house with a gun, demanding you pay your taxes with FRNs.

Why is counterfeiting fiat currency such a threat to the health of the State?  The answer is pretty simple. If individuals were free to create fiat money that competes with government paper, then the value of all fiat currency would quickly fall to the market value. Market value for fiat money is almost zero.

For this reason it is essential to the State’s survival that they maintain a monopoly on money. Under the current system, when the State prints money, the government agencies, banks, and special interest groups get access to the money first. The rest of the society gets screwed. When the monetary base is inflated, the common man doesn’t gain access to the newly created money until it has lost purchasing power.

(For the rest of the article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on lionsofliberty.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

4 thoughts on “Conterfeiting: A Federal Monopoly

  1. Typo: Secret service was founded in 1865, not 1965.

  2. Thank you coreyd. I have fixed in the source article at Lions of Liberty. I do not have access to make correction here

  3. The dangers of printing fiat currency are rife throughout history. Google the following:
    1. The German Weimar Republic
    2. Juan Peron's Argentina
    3. Napoleon's France
    4. Robert Mogabe's Rwanda
    5. Greece today
    6. Spain today
    7.Italy today
    8. Portugal today
    9. France today

    All of these countries did or are doing what the U.S. is currently doing.These are not an entire list. The point is that sooner or later the currency becomes worthless. Do not think that just because we live in the U.S.A. that we are immune to such catastrophes. There is NO free lunch.

  4. 4. I think you meant Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, not Rwanda.