they were paid for their gold, many hid it simply because as now they care more for themselves than their country, they felt they were more important.
And that right there tells you that Sam is a socialist. Wealth belongs to the gov. and only greedy people try to keep it. They must be punished. Funny, my family still has some of that gold. Explains why I am a greedy capitalist.
Yes, those who hid their gold during the Roosevelt gold heist of 1934 were indeed selfish and for very good reason, as there is much virtue in selfishness (rational self interest). Since I covered this subject within a different thread only a few months ago I will not expound upon it here.
I will however ask samhill this question: When everyone owns something in common, who really owns it? For example, if the government says that it is the people who really own Yellowstone Park, and some of those people actually believe they are part owners, and thereby decide to make a geothermal electricity generator out of Old Faithful, what will happen to them for partaking of their ownership? I hope you don't believe that the government is keeping all of our gold in Fort Knox because of its benevolence, or believe that we are all owners of it. What would happen if we decided to ask for a withdrawal of our rightful portion? We would be labeled as self serving greedy kooks who stand against the common good, who's representative is a government that wants us to believe that it is our altruistically benevolent friend. I.E., a government that is a communistic owner of everything that it claims we somehow all own in common (the root word of communist being common). If the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one, then the one is merely the sacrificial slave of the many, and the many is the common or the commune, and the government is its keeper, and you are living in a communist state. And if the one says that something is actually his he is being greedy and selfish and does he thereby deserve to have the full authority of the law come down upon him at the point of a gun (whereby samhill always at some juncture references that the law of the land [right or wrong, though to him always right] is the ultimate arbiter, so a gun is what they deserve for going against the communist state). Klook is 100% correct in his assessment of samhill.