You must log in or register to comment.
Defacing money, that’s a paddling.
Having a vagina and wanting to vote, that’s a paddling.
I like to do similar things on banknotes with a typewriter
Is this why it is “illegal” to “deface currency”, despite every zoo/museum having a penny crushing machine?
(yes yes, I know, americentric, but the UK and US have a tight history most US-first clowns refuse to acknowledge)
I thought that came from much further back, when the metal was the value and the face stamped on it was to certify the metal content at the promise of the stamper. Taking a sliver of silver off of 50 coins could be melted down and made into a 51st coin so defacing was just part of the counterfeiting process that devalued the original coins if anyone bothered to weigh them, or something like that.
Still. Seems like a pretty weird way to enforce that. Why do all the authoritarianism when the obvious answer would be to weigh your coinage?
Mostly because you can discourage a certain amount of bastardry by making it illegal to do one of the steps, while making everyone carry around scales to do business kind of defeats the purpose of coinage, which is to enable people to make transactions quickly and with very clear ideas of what they are exchanging. Assuming you trust the coin system to certify the coin which is supposed to be one ounce of silver actually is one ounce of silver, it’s very fast and easy to say ‘give me one silver and I will give you two hens.’ The whole process is done almost as fast as you can say it. If you don’t trust the coinage, you have to get a set of weights, which both sides of the transaction have to trust are accurate, a scale, which both sides have to trust is accurate, and then carefully weigh the coins, doing math to find the correct total weight, possibly a way to measure volume so you can check density as a stand-in for metal content, and doing this whole process every time you transact. There’s a whole other element around taxes as motivation to use currency but that’s a whole layer unto itself. People will tolerate a certain amount of authoritarianism if it makes their day-to-day feel easier/safer.
So… what you’re saying is the capitalists have never been trustworthy or deserving of respect at any point in history!?
Why else would one egg not ultimately be transferrable to one egg a couple month’s later!?
… OHHH THAT’S RIGHT, you want to alienate the producers from the consumers! Silly me…
Coinage enables trade with people who you don’t trust to even be there a month later, much less to come back to repay a debt, regardless of an adherence to capitalism or no. If you like, take away any capitalist hierarchies and imagine everyone involved as artisans and subsistence workers who make their way in the world by the produce of their own hands, no wages or exploitative bourgeoise. It’s still useful to have a way to engage in exchange with someone who you don’t have reason to trust.
Trust has to exist somewhere. In state-regulated currency, it is trust in the willingness of the state’s enforcers to enact violence on those who try to mess about with the currency and trust in most people’s desire not to have state violence enacted upon them. In a stateless society, the trust has to be maintained or there will be no exchange. No exchange means lower quality of life. Most people are quite happy to live with a little state violence if it means they get to live an easier life, or even just live to see tomorrow. Moralizing doesn’t stop the would-be king from cutting off heads until the survivors shut up and pay their taxes, and sarcasm undermines your ability to make a point.
‘This suffragette coin’, writes Neil MacGregor, ‘stands for all those who fought for the right to vote. It is a British penny with King Edward VII in elegant profile, but his image has been defaced in what was then a criminal act. Stamped all over the king’s head in crude capitals are the words VOTES FOR WOMEN.’1
It seems like it was already illegal to deface coins then.
Those penny crushing machines are fine. The issue is when people deface money with the intent to fraud. A silly crushed penny with a location smashed into it is only a problem if you try to use that penny to pay for something.
That’s true until you do what’s in the OP here.
The defacing law doesn’t spell that out, and is open to interpretation that can include propaganda, not just fraud. So the people who stamped the OP coin would have been prosecuted for defacing currency even though the stamp had nothing to do with fraud.
Nobody in government cares about the tourist penny kiosks, though.
I mean, I get it, but also, there is less than zero evidence of these machines not being used for that … … (yes yes, I know, proving a negative, yadda yadda, the point is it’s a silly superstitious concern!)
I think it might be related to altering the overall amount of currency in circulation. Destroying a large amount could influence the economy. Increasing the over all amount can mess things up too, which is why governments can’t just keep printing money as much as they like.
Some change here or there, they probably don’t really care about.
Those “Where’s Washington” or whatever bills have been around for at least a few decades.
Possibly. It’s also just as likely that the government doesn’t like you doing stuff to “their” property.
Though it’s apparently legal in the US, as long as you don’t do it for fraudulent reasons?
USA #1 fuck all other countries we own the world
The evidence presented here suggests that the ‘Votes for Women’ coins, or at least those that can be relatively securely attributed to an early date, were defaced by the same set of alphabet punches and, by inference, the same hand, in the years 1913–14. Symbolically, the practice of defacing a coin represented the same ideological protest against the laws of the country as other acts of suffragette militarism. Yet their potential impact as circulating instruments of propaganda was limited by the unsophisticated and inefficient way in which they were produced. The study has suggested that comparatively few were made, and that the campaign was sustained over a relatively brief period. Instead, ‘Votes for Women’ coins owe their current prominence within suffragette material culture to institutional intervention which, although well-intentioned, has inadvertently stimulated the production of forgeries. Despite their recent inclusion in the suffragette historiography, therefore, these coins were, for the best part of a century, of peripheral relevance to the story of how women gained the vote.
The Streisand Effect working long before there was a name for it hahaha. Cool little part of history!
They also blew up mailboxes.
And my mind
Love it
Why is it not reversed? Was it not used as a stamp? Do i miss something? Am I being stupid? Were they being stupid?
They used something like these
Ah thanks. Looks fairly labor-intensive but I suppose you don’t need ink and it looks more permanent
These are still used in industries like locksmithing, too!
They also killed people with bombs and at least one of them went on to be a prominent member of the British union of fascists.
The latter isn’t justified, but I do believe the systemic disenfranchisment of half the population to the degree we weren’t permitted to vote does justify violent response, even if I think bombs are generally a bad weapon due to their imprecision.
