[Dgcchat] I was talking about a different James

[R.A. Hettinga]

--- begin forwarded text


  Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 19:05:21 -0400
  To: Digital Gold and Silver Discussion List <dgcchat at dgcchat.com>
  From: James Turk <jamesturk at goldmoney.com>
  Subject: Re: [Dgcchat] I was talking about a different James
  Reply-To: Digital Gold and Silver Discussion List <dgcchat at dgcchat.com>
  Sender: dgcchat-bounces at dgcchat.com

  Raven

  Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  On the chance that my views may be
helpful, here's how I see it.

  >So if you operate an account-based currency, it seems you would be
  >expected to follow the law, doesn't it?
  >
  >-- Stop! This is where you lose a lot of the guys here. I'll try to
  >make this brief:
  >
  >1. You're accepting Big Brother. (Some here think you are welcoming
  >and inviting BB to "bring law and order" to the digital economy.) I
  >fully understand that BB exists, and that it must be considered as a
  >practical matter. But also understand that a lot of the folks here DO
  >NOT accept it as a given, and do not wish to bow down to it. They'd
  >rather run around it and try to build freedom. I'm sure some of us
  >don't divide these two different modes very well, but this is a major
  >issue.

  First, the principle that seems to be evolving in the still nascent
Internet is that each country sets the "law and order" for those people who
access the Internet from that country.  Thus if you access the Internet
from within France, you subject yourself to French law.  Similarly, if you
are in the US, you are subject to US law.

  The corollary is that you are subject to the law of the country in which
you operate your Internet business.  Thus if your company's staff, servers
and customer data are within the US, it seems pretty clear that your
business is subject to US law, regardless if your company is incorporated
in some other country.

  Second, and more importantly, I'm not accepting BB.  In fact, I'm doing
exactly what you say about avoiding BB.  That's why we have chosen to build
our business in the British Channel Islands, which is a sovereign country
that is very protective of property rights, and property rights are very
important to me as the builder of a financial services business.

  Some people on this list have a totally unrealistic view of the world,
possibly because they have never travelled out of their home country.
Government is a fact of life.  We decided to deal with that reality by
locating in the British Channel Islands.  We comply with the law there, and
as a consequence need to know who are customers are.  The quid pro quo is
that our customers are protected by the law there, which is Anglo-Saxon
common law -- the principles of which are based on property rights.

  GoldMoney is built upon sound business principles with a solid business
plan.  The outcome will be as I said in my other post to "create a DGC that
I believe will withstand the test of time.  Consequently, GoldMoney will
change things regarding money and banking -- which many people on this list
would no doubt like to see.  We want to reduce the role of government in
money.  GoldMoney is doing this by providing people with a viable and
well-run non-national currency, i.e., a currency not run by government."

  So GoldMoney is not accepting BB.  It's the exact opposite.  We're
dealing with BB in a pragmatic way.  Thus while we cope with BB in our own
way, we are building our business which will in time I expect change how
people around the world view money and also change what they will use for
currency.

  >2. Other account-based systems (like banks) are NOT shut down if their
  >customers do nasty things. This happens ONLY if the operators were
  >involved. Is my bank required to verify the intent of every check I
  >send through it? No? Then why is e-gold? I have seen no evidence that
  >e-gold knowingly colluded with kiddie-porn dealers.

  Banks don't verify the intent of every check.  All banks do is go through
the process of knowing who their customers are.  E-Gold didn't do that.

  E-Gold to my knowledge wasn't shut down.  Only the accounts in the
indictments were shut down.  Other accounts are still operating, aren't
they?  That's the same thing that happens in banks if banks don't follow
the regulations governing them.

  If E-Gold's own accounts were frozen, that happens in the banks too if
they don't comply with regulations.

  >3. Of course criminals are a problem here - they're a problem
  >everywhere! And, yes, there are real questions about business ethics
  >in dealing with ponzis, etc. - but those are EXACTLY the things we
  >should argue about on a list like this! AND DO ALL THE TIME!

  Yes, we do talk about that a lot, don't we?  But talk is one thing, and
action is another, and we all know that E-Gold allows ponzis and that ilk
to operate accounts within E-Gold.  Read the indictment the feds put
together.  It's an eye opener.

  >Finally, you seem to exhibit no empathy or concern for e-gold or any
  >of their users.

  Obviously I have no empathy for the crooks.  With regard to E-Gold's
legitimate customers, I don't have any views one way or the other.  It was
their choice to deal with E-Gold.  Nobody forced them to open an account
there, right?  Sometimes we make good decisions, sometimes bad -- in both
cases we have to accept the consequences of our actions.  But in any case
empathy is not needed here, because unless I missed something here,
E-Gold's legitimate customers are not effected by the indictment against
E-Gold's principals.

  Regards
  James


  _______________________________________________
  Dgcchat mailing list
  Dgcchat at dgcchat.com
  http://mail.dgcchat.com/mailman/listinfo/dgcchat_dgcchat.com

--- end forwarded text


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'