[derefr]

If anyone can mine a thing for themselves (i.e. create more supply of it), then that thing is a commodity. (Gold, for example, is a commodity.) By definition, no one entity can really restrict the supply or trade of a commodity; and thus the government can't really make useful laws about what any one entity does with their holdings of a commodity.

Any valuable thing that isn't a commodity, is a security. Every fiat currency is a security. Stocks and bonds are securities. Etc. The government can regulate securities (or rather, regulate their issuers, because there is a clear issuer), and so they do.

The definition of security isn't really vague; it's just a definition of exclusion. Replace security with "non-commidty" whenever it comes up and things might be clearer.

[sah2ed]

Not disagreeing with your observation, but to extract gold, you need a mining license which is typically required by law, so in a way governments can still make useful laws that regulate the scarcity or abundance of gold as a commodity by pricing mining licenses accordingly.

Gold ownership was outlawed in the US in 1933 by FDR.

[moreless]

> Gold ownership was outlawed in the US in 1933 by FDR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

EDIT: "The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed after President Gerald Ford signed a bill to "permit United States citizens to purchase, hold, sell, or otherwise deal with gold in the United States or abroad" with an act of Congress codified in Pub.L. 93–373,[19][20][21] which went into effect December 31, 1974."

[YuriNiyazov]

That's a very interesting way to distinguish the two, and the first time I am seeing it presented this way. Did you come up with this? Are there references?

[Frogolocalypse]

That's a really interesting insight. Thanks.