Governments try to control this by issuing new currencies, say like the "New Dollar" and the "New Euro", then having a limited time for redemption of the old notes at some official exchange rate (another place they screw you).

And of course an Executive Order banning private ownership of gold and silver should be expected.

Not much panic has set in at this point.

Capital controls are one of those things that you suddenly wake up and find you've got them.  Probably the idea has been to get them in place before the average guy on the street starts thinking about moving his money offshore.

But I have an idea that the dynamics of money have changed more than the control freak attitudes of our friendly government representatives have generated controllability.

The free flow of trade and currency has never in human history been more than temporarily impeded by government law, even when the penalties were beheading.  The only question is how much human suffering occurs before the natural readjustments occur.

If you are 27 and Obamacare would cost you $6000 per year but the penalty maxes out at $900 and you buy Obamacare, you are a total moron.

Because these financial incentives exist for intelligent people to pay the penalty preferentially, Obamacare is totally moronic.

I think I explained that, but maybe it wasn't clear.  Muslims are not a minor sect that can be disregarded as having any significant cost on Obamacare when you and I pick up the tab.

There is a second issue which you may be alluding to, which is political in nature and has to do with slanting issues such that Obama is shown to seem to be favoring Muslims.  I happen to agree with that but there's enough truth there there is no need to slant issues.

Muslims can either get out of O-care or they can not. 

And they can.  We can't.

Fair enough?

I'd like to float the idea of a one time transfer of bank wealth to bitcoins.

In general, there is nothing to be alarmed about when a bank or credit card company asks you for verification of a transaction.  That's their systems working RIGHT.

It's when they simply refuse to deal with XYZ or refuse to deal with Bitcoin that there is a problem.


By comparison, a major currency trade operation like XE.com does have some currencies they refuse to deal with.  They have very, very good reasons for doing that.

Banks do not have similarly good reasons to reject customers who trade bitcoins.

Next you'll be lecturing on how we need carbon taxes.  On how they are "good for us".  And on how high electric costs and high gasoline costs are "good for us".

That's ridiculous.  It's the same set of clauses that allow opt out for Christian Scientists.  There is no need to mention Muslims by name.  It simply requires the religion to have been established since 1950.

The difference of course is that Muslims are a far larger sect than the others who may possibly seek to be excluded from coverage, penalties and patments.

To be more specific, any Muslim may apply for an exemption and it would almost certainly be granted.  It has to do with their beliefs about insurance being evil.

But there is no constraint against a Muslim taking free government benefits, including health care.

So - as I read it here is what happens.

They can get it for free if in those income brackets.  If above those brackets, they cannot be charged a penalty for refusing to sign up.  But they would be not be turned away.

Therefore they would get it for free.

But Muslims aren't required to participate and don't get penalized.

You just need to STFU about things you don't know anything about, don't you?  In Canada, money for health care is doled to the provinces and they run the budget on it.  We are talking something different here in the USA, here it is supposedly done at the federal level.

Secondly, no you are NOT A MORON if you don't have health insurance, because then (HERE, UNDER OBAMACARE) you pay a penalty and get it for free or the cost of the penalty, if you wish to consider it that way.

And No, they don't "already have all your info..."   They are here, in this legislation, attempting to get exactly that.  Schools are county operations, and counties here are state ran - not federal.

I'm being critical because I have to, not because I am trying to be rude.  Too many mistakes in your post....assuming parallels with your medical system is of course false....

The problem with this kind of thinking is it asserts that moral decisions are based on two factors.

Expressing this mathematically-

Decision = Constant_A (Environmental effects) + Constant_B (Cost and Price)

The problem with this kind of equation is that someone has to determine Constant_A.

And that ain't gonna be you.

You are welcome to determine Consant_A for one person.

Yourself.  Attempts to determine it for others is a defacto environmental power trip.

No, actually it's not complicated.

It's a bit like people who might believe in religion but they don't like snotty street corner preachers pushing bibles in their face when they walk by.

It has nothing at all to do with the knowledge base and shouldn't. 

If I understand what you are saying, it is that people push agendas rather than look for actual causes and discuss them.

Not so sure about that.  Awareness of the impact of the psychoactive prescribed medications and their implication in mass killings has slowly came into the mainstream.

I'd certainly like to believe that a large number of people seriously interested in improving the world would take heed of actual causes and effects.

No.  My health plan cost is up 70% since this extortion racket started.  But I know all the 20ish kids are going to not buy into the con.  They ain't listening to shills like you.

The problem with this kind of thinking, interjecting morality into payment streams, is who does the decisions?

You want to have the US's branding of Wikileaks shut it down?  Then what about the opinion of Nigeria?  Russia?  Somalia?

Who says the opinion of the US as to what should be allowed to transact is correct or optimum?  

I could continue, but you get the point.  Wikileaks was around long, long before Manning and nobody cared.

For the benefit of people reading this thread from other countries, here is the way it works in the USA.

To receive guns from mail or post you must have a FFL - Federal Firearms License.  A person with FFL can receive guns from factory, distributors or other FFL.  These guys must adhere to both the federal and state law.

For me as a private citizen to send a gun to a buyer in another state, I would drop it off at the office of a FFL, pay him a small fee like $25USD and the shipping costs.  The person buying it from me would go to his designated FFL, pick it up and pay his small fee.  At that time that FFL would execute the NICS FBI background check on the receiving individual.  Hyatt Gun would have shipped to FFL only.  Mail order sales would be expected to be specialty items that were not available locally - this process costs about $100 more than a local dealer sale - although the mail order may not pay local sales tax.

So the story here is that Hyatt Gun - doing everything legally and correctly - ran into a problem where someone in Visa management simply didn't like guns.  

There is no story here whatsoever that Visa knew better, or had found a flaw in the system.  There MAY BE a story here of propaganda value, that is about it.

If a shutdown means I don't have to deal with that one inch of total trash junk spam that they bring every day...

COOL....