Confiscation

Because they are not after the gold per se, they are after control.
If you have gold you can do whatever you want in any situation.
if not, than its the soup kitchen and obedience.
 
PerthStack said:
A large number of people are already in this situation thanks to the war on drugs. Painted as criminals, even though most illicit drug consumers have no victims, even the violent side of the drug trade pales in comparison to the oil trade.
Click to expand...

I can see this being used as another justification for confiscation. Imagine the financial gains, employing PM detectors, a special police sector for tracking those scum stackers, more prisons, ect ect. It would have a very similar effect as the so called "war on drugs". It would acheive nothing but turning ordinary citizens into criminals, destroying lives for government profit.

PM confiscation coming to a town near you. :D
 
I've no doubt that if a nationalisation/confiscation were to ensue both mines and public gold would be targeted...they would b@stardise public holders of PM's and encourage family members to dob each other in etc. But they wouldn't police the public very hard...the cost:benefit wouldn't add up.

The Gestapo is actually a model example. Inside NAZI Germany the public feared the gestapo behind every shadow. The populace fed info, suspicions etc about one another to the local gestapo office as a way of appearing like a good 'citizen' (and to keep the suspicion off themself) After the war it was discovered that there was on average only 1 gestapo officer per 100,000 people, and he was flat out reading the tons of letters being dumped on his desk every day.... he never got out of the office. The Gestapo relied on the populace doing their work for them... in the name of 'doing the right thing for the country'.

Confiscation of illicite materials, be they hard drugs, alchohol or other illegal items has never been sucessful. They only catch the dumb and reckless. Mostly they rely on a complacent population to hang themselves out to dry by getting them to believe unjust laws are for their own good and dobbing themselves in.

For example; remember a few months back when the Govt was 'going on' about binge drinking...and how anyone that drank more than 4 drinks in a session was an evil glutton alchoholic ? I put my hand up at the smoko table conversation about this and openly admitted to having well over 4 drinks at a session and was looked on like a pariah. At the Christmas break-up party just gone, I saw a fellow accuser down his 6th pot of beer while smoking a durrie between go's on the pokies...

Here in this one example, Smoking, gambling, binge drinking all evils once supported by govt then demonised the next week... why would anyone bother listening to what the govt says is good for us ?
 
Luna de Cuba said:
boston said:
Luna de Cuba said:
Pursuant to s51(xxxi) of the Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament can make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms". "Property" is broadly defined, and would, doubtless, include precious metals. Would it ever happen? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
The key part of this section is
of which the Parliament has power to make laws
Click to expand...
Whilst argueable, I would believe, that it would be against the Constitution to legislate the confiscation of legal tender.

Especially if the AG/AU is in legal tender coin form as per s115. As far as I am aware, legal tender cannot be rejected as a mode of payment, or indeed confiscated, especially if condoned and sanctioned by the Constitution. Just my musings :D
Click to expand...

Errr, no. s115 merely preserves to the Commonwealth the right to coin money and determine what is legal tender. (The bit about 'gold and silver' is just an anachronism.) Nothing to do with the acquisition power. Even were your interpretation correct, not all precious metal is held as legal tender, eh?!
Click to expand...
s115 is actually about the states, and their right to only coin gold or silver as legal tender, and I would contend that this is no accident.

Being enshrined in the Constitution as legal tender would, I believe, give legal protection against any threat of confiscation of AG/AU coin by the Commonwealth. Bullion is a different matter however.
 
I've heard of compulsory acquisition of land but I find it hard to believe that that sort of thing could happen with an individual's personal wealth (in regard to PMs), maybe I'm just naive though.

I don't think the Australian public is as susceptible to the level of propaganda it would take to pull that off as the American population. I don't mean that as an insult to any of our American members, who are clearly not one of those sheeple. It's very difficult to imagine Australians being against things like Universal Healthcare and Regulation of the Financial Industry, it just wouldn't fly here.

Hell, the majority of Australians favour compulsory voting. Can you imagine the sh*tstorm that would brew if the US tried to introduce it?

We're a lot alike but in many ways, very different.
 
...Just wanted to make the comment re Gestapo tactics:

Remember water restrictions? This was a great test case on how powerful community policing can be. EVERYONE was scared to water their lawns and let the gardens die off rather than face harsh criticism by the neighbour. In fact - if I remember correctly, one guy was actually assulted and killed (in Vic?) for watering his garden on a "non watering day". If you create a threat/enemy - the community will respond (because of thier percieved power) eg "I had Jack next door locked up cause he was doing the wrong thing". This was precisely the genius tactic Hitler used.... he gave young poor peope a fantastic official looking uniform and gave them the authority/responsibilty to (insert barbaric action here) for the sake of the Fatherland (ok, I paraphrased a bit - but this was essentially the story).

Bottom line:

If the powers that be decided to implement a gold compensation scheme (regardless of why), you bet'cha they would be very effective in aquiring a significant percentage of privately held wealth.

....(sorry to drag on but,) As mentioned in the article - the tactic would simply be to offer market rates+ (say $1500 fiat/oz) and this would catch the vast majority - have a use by date - then a penalty date - then a confiscation date - and then massively deflate the value of fiat. (Sorry to mention G.U.N.S GP) but this is precisly what happend with the "Buy back scheme". Same old system/same old pattern .

ws
 
I just hope that when the bible says that we'll throw our worthless gold into the streets it isn't the government that has made it worthless.

p.s Ezekiel 7:19
They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.
 
boston said:
s115 is actually about the states, and their right to only coin gold or silver as legal tender, and I would contend that this is no accident.

Being enshrined in the Constitution as legal tender would, I believe, give legal protection against any threat of confiscation of AG/AU coin by the Commonwealth. Bullion is a different matter however.
Click to expand...

"115. States not to coin money. A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin legal tender in payment of debts" = Only the Commonwealth may coin money. A State cannot create its own standard of legal tender. For example, Queensland cannot legislate to coin its own money, nor can it make pineapples legal tender within Queensland. Nothing to do with the metal content or coins, nor with the acquisition power of the Commonwealth.
 
Luna de Cuba said:
boston said:
s115 is actually about the states, and their right to only coin gold or silver as legal tender, and I would contend that this is no accident.

Being enshrined in the Constitution as legal tender would, I believe, give legal protection against any threat of confiscation of AG/AU coin by the Commonwealth. Bullion is a different matter however.
Click to expand...

"115. States not to coin money. A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin legal tender in payment of debts" = Only the Commonwealth may coin money. A State cannot create its own standard of legal tender. For example, Queensland cannot legislate to coin its own money, nor can it make pineapples legal tender within Queensland. Nothing to do with the metal content or coins, nor with the acquisition power of the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting interpretation of s115 by including the title sentence, and it has arguable merit. However, it could still be debated that as AG/AU coin is described as legal tender, it has legal protection against potential confiscation.

To some degree, forfeiture prior to conviction being illegal and void, is also enshrined in Commonwealth and State legislation, predominately under the Imperial Acts. eg Imperial Acts Application Act 1980, Act No 9426/1980 s8 (Vic).
 
boston said:
...it could still be debated that as AG/AU coin is described as legal tender, it has legal protection against potential confiscation.
Click to expand...

I don't see the connection between legal tender coins and protection from acquisition by the Commonwealth. Anyway, who actually has property in a legal tender coin? (Have to think about that one...)

boston said:
...forfeiture prior to conviction being illegal and void, is also enshrined in Commonwealth and State legislation,...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, seriously off-topic, but, see Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA) and Serious and Organised Crime (Unexplained Wealth) Act 2009 (SA) for examples of the power of the State to confiscate, in the absence of conviction of any criminal offence, wealth suspected of being the proceeds of crime, or connected with a criminal offence.
 
Luna de Cuba said:
Hmmm, seriously off-topic, but, see Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA) and Serious and Organised Crime (Unexplained Wealth) Act 2009 (SA) for examples of the power of the State to confiscate, in the absence of conviction of any criminal offence, wealth suspected of being the proceeds of crime, or connected with a criminal offence.
Click to expand...
Don't forget, if conflicting state legislation exists as per s109 of the Constitution, that Commonwealth legislation overrides state legislation and the Imperial Acts are also enshrined in the Commonwealth arena.
 
PrettyPrettyShinyShiny said:
If the SHTF and they go banging on doors, I'm grabbing my stash and running for the hills. They can have the possessions in the house. If they go chasing it, then it means that it is the ...I think I'll bury a strongbox somewhere in a national park and carry a GPS with me :)
Click to expand...

If there was a magnitude 9 quake ( per Japan ) your GPS wouldn't show you the spot.
Believe Japan moved several metres and all the maps have to be re-written.
GPS street maps in some areas are no use anymore.
In Roman times, when rich people buried their crock of gold coins only to be dug up by some kid with a metal detector 2000 years later.
Beware the metal detector brigade scanning the parks looking for lost treasure.
 
"Being enshrined in the Constitution as legal tender would, I believe, give legal protection against any threat of confiscation of AG/AU coin by the Commonwealth."

Under Section 23 of the Currency Act 1965 "the GovernorGeneral may, by Proclamation, call in any coins issued under this Act or the repealed Acts before a date specified in the Proclamation." ie any legal tender, which Perth Mint coins are.

I do not think there is enough (outside of the Perth Mint Depository) precious metal held privately in Australia to make it worthwhile to do door-to-door confiscation. It would be an interesting exercise to pull all the Perth Mint's records for sales, less buybacks, to domestic people and dealers as far back as I can go and see what the overall net sales have been.

Based on my general sense of what we currently trade I can't see it in any way approaching what Australia mines in a year, even half a year. In which case mine nationalisation is the most likely first step for a Government in desperate need of gold.

Best to read http://goldchat.blogspot.com/2008/08/history-of-gold-controls-in-australia.html for how mining used to operate when it was illegal in Australia to own gold. This is most likely what we will return to if the Government decides to revert back some sort of gold standard (if only for international trade like Bretton Woods).

I still think WA secession is a more likely response to a Federal Government gold confiscation, as I argue in http://goldchat.blogspot.com/2008/11/australian-gold-confiscation.html
 
bron suchecki said:
...Under Section 23 of the Currency Act 1965 "the GovernorGeneral may, by Proclamation, call in any coins issued under this Act or the repealed Acts before a date specified in the Proclamation." ie any legal tender, which Perth Mint coins are...
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that 'calling in' a coin means, not confiscation, but withdrawal. For example, 1 and 2c coins have been 'called in', in that they are no longer minted for circulation. (They do, of course, remain legal tender.)
 
If the government actually started to confiscate your Pm's do you think your stack would become far less liquid?

Due the fear of being snitched on, loosing your whole stack over a couple of small transactions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top