>>See my previous post. The difference is that the Mint was going to destroy the coins anyway. That's their legal right, of course, but it does change the situation somewhat. The "thieves" in the case of the coins were in effect rescuing them from the trash can, not taking something that the Mint intended to keep and use (in which case theft of the item would deprive the Mint of the item's utility).>So it's perfectaly acceptable for an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to take stacks of $100 bills that failed their final quality inspection and are due to be shredded? That's not theft?
Hello. Anyone home? No answer from you on this.
So it's perfectaly acceptable for an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to take stacks of $100 bills that failed their final quality inspection and are due to be shredded? That's not theft? On the other hand, when a President orders the confiscation of real property, gold, and then devalues the paper dollar in return, that is not theft? Where was the bigger crime here?