Please. Gainsbourg had already done it back in 1984 - proving once again that France is and will always be at the bleeding edge of attention seeking stunts 
Thanks. From the section “Final years” in that Wiki article on Gainsbourg: “In March 1984, while this was illegal (article 132 of the ‘Code Penal’) and highly offensive, he burned a 500 French franc bill on television to protest against heavy taxation.”
One could have a whole GD thread on whether the K Foundation actually did it (well, maybe if this board was populated by mid-90’s UK music obsessives like myself). I remember when they claimed to do it back in 1994 and nobody believed them…but now I think opinion is swinging the other way. As the Guardian article mentioned in the linked page said, they’d cried wolf over all the crazy stunts they’d done so many times that nobody believed them when they did (?) the craziest stunt of all.
But for those of us who remember the K Foundation’s bravado and sneering, the proof of the matter is that Cauty and Drummond have been completely wrecked by it all. It seems like it took 10 years for the gravity of what they did to themselves to sink in.
An aside is that one of the funniest lines the Grauniad ever came up with was in relation to the whole stunt: “Confucius says: Aston Martin dealer will not accept suitcase full of ash as down payment.” Classic.
I disagree with this analysis. The coin collector retains value of the coinage, and in some circumstances, increases the value of the retained coins because like coins are removed from circulation. Additionally, there is value created in the collector’s efforts to remove and organize the coinage.
No, I believe Snowboarder Bo is correct, and while the law and analysis you cited is correct, it is misapplied to what Snowboarder Bo originally posted. First, what you cite is correct, but it applies to coinage, not currency. Second, one arguably creates value creating a necklace out of a quarter. Unlike burning a $100 bill (to reference your earlier post) to light a cigar, framing a dollar also creates a value of sorts, doesn’t destroy currency, and is possible to put such dollar back into circulation.
Also see , "18 U.S.C. Sect. 333Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
From my cursory review, there aren’t many cases, and they’re usually tried as forgery crimes. I believe that’s because it’s much harder to prove intent. If the OP’s example happened in the US, I’m sure the local district attorney (or US Attorney, rather) would have no problem enforcing this provision.
These defacing laws don’t prevent you from burning or destroying currency, they prevent you from altering bills and then passing them. It’s perfectly legal to burn $100 bills, just like it’s perfectly legal to use those penny-squishing machines.
Burning currency causes a tiny bit of deflation–the value of the remaining currency in question rises slightly, so when you burn currency you aren’t destroying something of value, you’re just transfering it from yourself to every other person who holds that money. Governments routinely take currency out of circulation and destroy it, and they aren’t destroying anything of value except a few scraps of paper. Currency is only a small amount of the money in existance, most money nowadays is completely virtual.
It’s fine. It’s your money; do what you will with it.
That would be really difficult.
It doesn’t matter. If I buy something and then burn it, I can’t sell it either (at least, I’ve probably decreased the value quite a bit - see the above link to see what happened to the K-Foundation’s 1 million pounds worth of ash).
Both cases are equivalent, and in my opinion there’s nothing immoral about it at all. People just have funny emotional hangups about value when it’s expressed in cash.
Do the Swedes have some patriotic attachment to their money? Does it have a picture of the King or some other beloved national figure? Much as we love the dollar, I think most of my fellow Americans would think you were an idiot or a nut if you burned your own money, but wouldn’t consider it “immoral” in any way.
I still like this, either as an artistic gesture or as a totally pointless act. Probably both.
Generally speaking, the legal prohibitions against defacing currency have one of two goals:
-
To prevent counterfeiting; and
-
To prevent some sort of arbitrage (for example: melting down pennies for their copper).
See for example the Canadian Currency Act, which states as follows:
Note that this refers to coins specifically, not dollar bills; obviously, no-one is going to make any money using dollar bills as paper.
Although in theory this provision makes illegal those penny-squashing machines, or piercing coins for jewelry, it is not I think enforced - the aim is i believe to prevent more large-scale manipulations.
Edit: note that “owning” (say) pennies does not give the right to melt them down and sell them for copper.
The owner retaining the value of the coins wasn’t the ethical question being raised; rather that they are removing the coins from circulation and if doing so was an unethical act. I’ll note that circulating coins do not increase in value as a result of collectors efforts, if the coin is in general circulation it is worth exactly its printed value. They are only worth more than that due to scarcity, either because they had pressing errors or have been removed from circulation. The $12.50 in state quarters is going to remain worth $12.50 for a very long time; it’s going to be worth $12.50 when my ex-coworker has grandchildren. I’ve got a 1967 quarter in my pocket and it’s still circulating at 43 years, so I’m guessing it’ll be 2044 at the earliest before state quarters are removed from circulation and 50 of them will amount to more than $12.50. While not permanent, they’ve been willfully removed from circulation by their owner for 43 years. Is this unethical? I’m going with no.
I cited the same law that Snowboarder Bo did. Whether or not “a value of sorts” is created is entirely irrelevant as far as the law is concerned with regards to a quarter necklace, the only relevance is if one were to try passing off the defaced quarter as if it were a normal quarter. “A value of sorts” is irrelevant with slapping a dollar bill in a frame (and it’s still going to be worth $1), the only relevance being that the owner of the bill has willfully removed it from circulation with the intention of keeping it permanently out of circulation, meeting the criterion for questioning if it’s an unethical act as per gladtobeblazed. Again, I don’t see it as being unethical.
They would have a very hard time enforcing it, so hard that they wouldn’t charge it. As you’ve noted, it’s much harder to prove intent - and 18 USC 333 is also an intent based crime. “…with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued…” Someone lighting a cigar with a $100 bill’s intent was to light his cigar. A claim of freedom of expression as the intent would make prosecuting the example of the OP had it happened in the US entirely untenable. See also
There is very little patriotism at all in Sweden, in fact the word patriot is distinctly negative here and the word “un-swedish” is used as a compliment*. But there’s a lot of lutheranism in the culture. “Work hard, don’t make a fuss, if you have money at least have the decency to be ashamed of it”. That sort of thing.
The criticism of the stunt seems mainly knee-jerk and the ones being upset about it don’t seem to think about or understand what the actual effect is. The moral outrage is pretty much based on “why didn’t you give the money to someone who needed it”.
I think there’s a difference between burning 100.000 and (for example) burning a car or other object worth 100.000. The instant the money is destroyed its intrinsic value is spread across all the capital that is still there. My money just got worth a tiny but more. As a redistribution of wealth it is hardly optimal but it is a redistribution of wealth (also not a negative phrase here).
- meaning someone who is self confident and unconformist
(Yeah, sorry about that. I tried linking to that specific bit, then the source for it but both were a bust. It didn’t cross my mind to just copy/paste it :/)
The criticism to this stunt in Sweden is mostly based on the fact that people starve. They say it’s disrespect to “value” and to all who desperately need it.
I would agree, it’s horrible when people who have too much money just waste it while some have none. I’m AMAZED that this idea never has come up in this thread. Insted I read this:
It was Carl von Linné or (Carl Linnaeus) on those bills. He did great things, but I don’t think the swedes are superstitious enough to think he would care If his picture was burned. I mean he is long dead.
Personaly I liked the stunt, because the other option the party had was to litter Sweden with posters or something, wich also mean “burning money”. I think this stunt shows how all political campaigns burn money. And that money is missused all over society. This were the best spent money I have heard of in a long time, because it has the potential to wake the debate of how morally we spend.
is the OP suggesting that the average man in Sweden earns $13,700 USD per month ?
The OP suggests that you re-read the OP. 
I agree. And in effect they were doing the opposite of “burning money”. The money was designated for advertising and the amount of news they got for burning it was absolutely insane. They got more publicity than one hundred MILLIONS would have gotten them. So ironically, it was money incredibly well spent.
I wonder why you have so many crazy ass feminist over there, but if the girls like to burn money rather than spend them on new shoes or whatever, then that’s their business and I don’t see why anybody else should bother about that, let alone get morally outraged.
Well, if the amount burned was $13,100 and the average Swede makes $600 more per month I can only conclude as I have suggested.
Reread more carefully. You seem to have arbitrarily introduced the concept of “year” into the OP, while ignoring the fact that the concept of “minute” is explicitly mentioned there.