Earlier quoted context omitted.
After doing a tiny bit of research (google and wikipedia), it seems mens rea does not apply if said crime is considered a strict liability crime. Examples are selling alcohol to underage, or statutory rape. Counterfeiting is another strict liability crime. His real crime is, of course, competing with the government. You will lose, unless you take up arms. The government has no problems using excessive force to stop y…
This is one of the few times I'd ever say that government crackdown is a good thing. One country having multiple currencies at the same time could become a big logistical headache. It would definitely have political and social implications. [EDIT: I welcome downvotes on comments that are not constructive. If you think this is totally off the wall, please give a good explanation why.]
>This is one of the few times I'd ever say that government crackdown is a good thing. One country having multiple currencies at the same time could become a big logistical headache.
You think governments should crackdown on and seek to imprison people because they engage in activities that cause logistical problems for the government? And you think this is one of the few times that a government should intervene? Seriously?
> It would definitely have political and social implications. This sentence is empty of information. Every action has an implication. I would have upvoted you if you'd described what kind of implications rather than implying that having "implications" is something that governments should intervene in.