Exactly. And the people who believe Microsoft should "do the right thing" and "pay their fair share" assume that the government will do more good with the money than Microsoft will.
I am not convinced of the accuracy of that assumption.
Well, if they are torturing people and engaged in tortuous interference, they should certainly be prosecuted. However, if they are merely interfering with business relations and involved in tortious interference then a criminal case may not be warranted.
(What, thy spell checker hath not the finesse?)
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operation."
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press"
The circumstances of some traffic stops, particularly when the detained individual is armed, might justify a safety measure -- for example, a command that bystanders disperse -- that would incidentally impact an individual's exercise of the First Amendment right to film. Such an order, even when directed at a person who is filming, may be appropriate for legitimate safety reasons. However, a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties.
The properties of gold make it valuable for several different purposes. One of those purposes is its value as a conductor in electronic components. It's rarity, malleability, and resistance to corrosion make it valuable as a medium of exchange. The fact that one of these purposes is use as a "money" isn't any different than another type of purpose.
Supply and demand for gold for for these purposes (e.g., dentistry, jewelry, money, electronics) dictate the price of gold. The supply is relatively stable, inflating slowly as more gold is mined. Demand is more volatile and is what accounts for most of the fluctuation in the price of gold.
Bitcoin has properties which make it suitable only as a medium of exchange; it fulfills that role quite well, if not perfectly. Just like gold, supply and demand dictate the price of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's primary deficiency at this point is it's price fluctuation in price vs. major fiat currencies, which make it inconvenient to use as a medium of exchange.
US Dollars aren't "issued by government." The US monetary supply is completely in control by a private banking system called the Federal Reserve System.
Gold and silver standards were exactly a system of money imposed by governments, effectively legislating the price of the underlying metal.
Gold and silver standards pre-existed state control of money. Attempts to legislate the price of metal always failed because the state could never resist the temptation to inflate the currency base, making the price of the metal unsupportably low.
I guess you're thinking of 19th century banknotes, issued by private banks
Not the 19th century. This century starting in 1913. That's what we (in the US) have now: a private bank issuing private banknotes.
You're just trolling, but we (the US and most other countries) do allow a private banking system to control and issue our currency. It's called the Federal Reserve System and it is private. See Lews v. United States,680 F.2d 1239.
I never "listen" to "stupid media" - I read.