Why on earth would a government seek to control the sale of a few ounces of silver?
From International Man:
Recently, a reader, Harry Morgan, [described] a problem that he encountered in selling 10 ounces of silver to a local jewelry store.
Mr. Morgan was successful in selling his silver to the store, but before the transaction could be made, he had to submit to mandatory fingerprinting. He then found that payment for precious metals in excess of $600 must be by cheque, necessitating a deposit into a bank account.
In depositing a cheque, Mr. Morgan’s bank advised him that it was “required policy to ask everyone who was cashing or depositing a check from a jewelry store, coin store or a coin and stamp store” what the cheque was for. Not surprisingly, Mr. Morgan felt that it was none of the bank’s business what the nature of his transaction with the jewelry store might be.
Now, it should be said that neither the jewelry store manager, nor the bank manager suggested that the selling of precious metal was a crime; only that, if a sale is to take place, it must be recorded. And it is safe to say that neither the store nor the bank would have a vested interest in creating such policies on their own, as such record-keeping does not increase the profits of their respective businesses. It only increases unproductive paperwork.
It would seem clear that the culprit here is the State. In the U.S., several states have either passed laws or are in the process of drafting laws to record the sales of precious metals.
The reader might well ask, “Why on earth would a government seek to control the sale of a few ounces of silver?”