The New Push for a Global Currency

I don't doubt that. We're nonetheless even worse off though for having
allowed an international cartel of Banksters to impose a Usery Monopoly
on the U.S. economy and us for 96 years. That bogus money system has
made it as easy for an elite minority to dominate us to our detriment, as
it has for Buck Bundy(their dog) to get a credit card. Hey, why not grant
EZ credit to canines. Though they print funny money out of thin air as
legitimized counterfeiters, the extreme gravity of their Usery Monopoly
enslavement is a horror story for too many Americans. I don't relish the
idea that some Bankster thinks of me, or others, as fish to be caught up
in their network. Credit is necessary for big ticket items like the purchase
of real property to use as your house & home. But to replace the Gold &
Silver standards with debt standard has only allowed the extreme abuse
of credit to put our money itself behind the 8 ball. I once spent Swiss 100
Franc notes in Geneva and counted Silver half Franks in my change like
the Washington quarters of the early 1960s. I would rather spend Swiss
Franc currency than Federal Reserve Monopoly parlor game funny money
anyday of my life. I can't speak for 300 Million Americans because I can't
walk a mile in their shoes. But if they saw Gold coins from the USA viewable
through plate glass windows in their neighborhood commercial banks or
credit unions as I have...Trust me, they wouldn't care who or what printed it.
Why ? Gold is as incredibly stable as it is virtualy indestructable. The idea
that you could save Gold for your retirement, and know that it would not
be devalued in the next 140 years any more than it was here from 1792
through 1932 is very appealing. Gold has been real money for 5,000 years.
Any country's currency that's Gold backed is the best you can do with paper.
We spend " money " now that's color coded for Go. But backed with red ink
which shouts STOP. Go figure.

Very well said.

That's called a slippery slope.

EVERY government is a multi-layered system.

We have the US Federal government, the states, the counties, the cities, the towns, the subdivisions, and that little old lady in the golf cart who scrawls notes if you didn't mow your lawn.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a government who's domain is any more than a few square miles or more than a few hundred people that does NOT have layers.

You would have to tell me how the United States and China reach agreements on Civil rights. You would have to explain to me why we should make any compromise to our Constitution or Bill of Rights. It may seem hard to fathom in the political climate of the last ten to fifty years, but we have the best framework for a government for the people. Sure it's being tampered with and bastardized as we speak, but ours is the best way to govern once you deal with the special interest and corporate greed.

As for what the "elites do with their money and power, research one term....EUGENICS. And if your down with that have a nice life, if you find it as appalling as the rest of us sane folk then resist.

Well, I certainly do not have to answer questions that are not based on anything I wrote.

I never said one world government will happen tomorrow. 50 years ago no one would have thought China would be practically capitalist and our largest trading partner.

100 years ago, we had slavery in the US. Who knows how China will change with time.

I also never said anything at all about sacrificing human rights- it is bizarre that you would even assume that a one world government must have LESS human rights than a world with hundreds of governments.

As for your paranoid rant that any human being in power will always practice eugenics programs- well, there is no rational argument that will change an irrational position.

Your statement is basically anti-goverment in general.

So why would one world government be worse than a world with a hundred governments?

There you go- fewer governments. Anti-goverment people should like that.

because centralization never works. One-size fits all policy doesn't work even at the state level - people are too diverse. Every community is different and has different problems and need. What is needed is the reverse; empowerment of local goverments.

That's what we have now => reverse. How much more reverse do you want? 6800 RPM's? Red Line? Red line to Stupidville?

reverse to yellow line at 4000 kilowatts mixed in with some pseudo- cryptic nonsense

You're too slow, welcome to Hooterville.

Centralization always works.
That's why we have nations now, instead of small feuding city-states like in the past.

I never said anything about a one-size fits all policy- All governments are stratified into different jurisdictions at different levels. Policies that need to be local would be local, policies that need to be global would be global, and others would be at whatever level is appropriate.

You have to admit that some issues, like human trafficking, climate control, and human rights can only be handled on a global level; thus now they are not being handled at all.

And by having a one-world government, border disputes become non-existant.

New York and New Jersey have debated over who owns Liberty Island for a long time now, but have never gone to war about it, because they are two states in the name nation. Instead, they settled their differences like civilized folk, by suing each other.

Imagine if Israel and Palestine had to settle their differences in a courtroom, and because of a global government must abide by the judgement.

=> respecting and celebrating local cultures and traditions is the lever so often used to whip people into a war frenzy, a blow-everyone-away frenzy. Doesn't that result in an end to cultures and traditions?

Fear of losing cultures & traditions ends in everybody firing rifles whenever some two bit elite-brain dictator tells you your culture or your traditions are in danger from an "enemy" when the REAL ENEMY is the pipsqueak shouting for war.

But he knew your fear. You loved partitions, you loved separation. That thing staring you in the face is called a Howitzer.

The United States and China are both active members in the U.N. Human Rights Council. Yes, these two countries have differences on the subject of human rights, but one can hardly claim they don't come to ANY agreements on these issues whatsoever.

True, the U.S. Constitution and our form of government is wonderful IF it gives primacy to the rights and liberties of the individual, i.e., the concept of "self-ownership" over "the many". Democracy is fine if the majority view is a sane one. If it is instead an insane view, democracy can be monstrous ... as so many in the minority view have learned throughout U.S. history and who know in today's climate.

If a world government gives primacy to individual sovereignty, it is a good world government. If it does not, it is no better than any other nationalistic state.

You make a good point I forgot to address. Although I am for a world government because there are certain basic values that are good for human beings regardless of where they are located, ideally I am an anarchist, i.e., one who supports the idea of no government at all. Obviously no government is desirable if human beings are respectful and fair with one another. If they are, what would be the point of a government designed essentially to compel them to be respectful and fair?

In any event, the human species isn't mature enough for genuine anarchy, which is why human beings need government - to compel them to treat one another with respect and fairness when they won't voluntarily.

At least one value is essential to all who love their life and love the living of it - respect from others for their liberty to exercise their right to live their own lives.

National governments are a mixed bag in that respect. If a world government could enforce that one principle, it would be of great benefit to all human beings. If, instead, it explicitly or implicitly allows the rights and liberties of individuals to be violated, it is hardly different than most other national governments.

Realizing how our government functions currently, (Of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation), and our inability to evoke real change and reform, I couldn't possibly get behind the idea of expanding this bureaucracy on a global scale. It just doesn't make sense on it's face. Where are the idealistic reformers in the world who will magically coral the corporations and their lobbying powers. Even if you had some sort of legislated reform in place to curb big businesses influence on policy, do you think they would throw up there hands and say, "Oh well, it's against the law to buy politicians, i guess the jig is up." No chance. There is to much at stake for them. What I feel you get with a global gov't is the absolute loss of transparency. Why if our economy was on the brink of collapse did we bailout the banks who profited from the misguided business practices that put us in the hole to begin with? Isn't the point of capitalism that those who do good business succeed, and those who operate poorly fail? But rather than do something that would directly help the people of the nation, they gave the money to the corporations. Bush and Obama both. Screw the individual. Let's keep things as local as possible. Our forefathers understood that was the best way to govern.

"The time has come for everyone to clean up their own back yard, before they go knocking on your neighbors door." Erik Schrody

I'm fond of the phrase, "Think globally, act locally."

I can agree with your last sentence at least. To assume one loses transparency with world government is an unwarranted assumption. As I've indicated, if a world government guarantees above all else the sovereignty of the individual, such a government can be of benefit, especially to those who do not currently have that degree of personal liberty. In any case, those with lots of personal liberty now wouldn't be harmed by such a government.

Still, it's possible a world government wouldn't genuinely guarantee individual rights and liberties any more than national governments do. Yes, it's possible world government wouldn't be any better, but that's not a certain thing. It's just as possible - if not entirely likely - a world government would be an improvement - even for those in what's currently known as the United State of America.

If world government guaranteed the right and liberty of every individual to marry whomever and as many as one wishes, that would be at least one improvement over what is currently considered liberty in the U.S. I'm certain there are other American shortfalls needing improvement in that regard. Personally, it'd be nice to be rid of the socialist state and heavy taxation. The dismantling of the world's armies alone would be of tremendous value. The expense of constructing, maintaining and policing borders is a heavy one. The costs of immigrations policies and customs, tariffs, etc. must be a huge drain on world economies. Imagine all of that disappearing thus making business more profitable.

I assume you are american, right?

Right now, we have local cultures. Californians are not like New Yorkers.
Miami is not like New Orleans.
Texas might as well be a different planet from Massachusetts.

Culture has it's good aspects, and it's bad aspects.

Good aspects, like music, clothing, art, architecture, etc would not be hindered in the least by a world government.

Bad aspects, like female circumcision, arranged marriages, stoning, killing gays, etc would finally be ended by having a government that can look at those things objectively, and determine that they are violations of human rights.

A regional government, composed of people born and raised in that culture, thus born and raised to find such things acceptable, cannot do that.

What you are talking about is the KIND of government- Corporatism.

No one said anything about the United States taking over the planet for Coca-Cola, Walmart and McDonalds.

As it stands now, the huge multi-national corporations cannot be controlled by separate individual nations because they can always shift each aspect of their company to a nation friendly to that aspect.

Manufacturing goes to third-world nations with no child labor laws.
Accounting goes to tax havens.
Management goes somewhere with legalized prostitution.
The product designers go somewhere with legalized drugs. :)

With a one-world government, they would have no where to run.

Your whole argument is that government is bad.

So why would it be better to have hundreds of them?

I am not making the argument for complete decentralization. Just the idea that power flows from the individual and stems upward to the community, the state, and then the federal government . Therefore, whenever possible power should be given to the local community.

Having a one-world government. Well who will control the one world government? Inevitably some country is going to be the "first among equals."

Issues will be ascertained and articulated by the most powerful members, and these issues will be irrelevant to weaker members. E.g. A political debate about whether to lay international fiber optic lines for high-speed internet, or improve satellites capabilities , when the third-world countries have large amounts of starving populace who don't have electricity.

Inevitable policy will be skewed toward the most powerful member, the weakest will get shafted. Africa will get raped.

Then we get to the administration of a global policy.

The vast geographic scope and diverseness of the U.S. make it not only undesirable, but very difficult to effectively administer a national policy, cooked up with vision of national uniformity. Administering policy through a world-wide bureaucracy would be so slow, inefficient, and such a colossal waste of resources as to make any well-intentioned policy unfeasible.

You are making lots of assumptions, and I see no basis for them.

You say: "Inevitably some country is going to be the "first among equals.""

I live in the United States.
Are you saying one of the states is the first among equals?
Which one?

Again, the problems you talk about have NOTHING to do with a one world government, and only with the KIND of government.

There can be a small town with only a few thousand people in it, with a Mayor and his wealthy friends who don't give a damn about the homeless people going through the dumpsters behind wall-mart.

You make an assumption that global government means evil government, when local community governments are more than capable of doing lots and lots of evil.

Um, that post was about cultural diversity still existing under one government.

How did you jump to America being Atheist?

I never said America is Atheist, not in that post or any other.

America is secular, and I have said that in other unrelated conversations.

There is a huge difference between those two words- a Secular government takes no position at all on religion, and allows it's people complete freedom of religion.

"In God We Trust" was added in the 1950's by Fundamentalist Christians trying to turn this country into a theocracy.

No, religion is NOT the basis for laws in the United States- it's the same basis as the laws of modern France; Secular Humanism. Natural Rights that arise from Natural Law, concepts from the philosophers of the Enlightenment.

Since you are French, read Voltaire and Rousseau.

The "Moral Values" would be as I said- Human Rights.

As I said in the other post, some traditions that violate human rights would become illegal- like female circumcision. And yes, all citizens, including gays, would be equal.

You are assuming one world government would be forced on the globe in a Machiavellian scheme. Instead, it would be like the EU, an exclusive club that demands it's members live up to standards.

Being that you are in Europe, you should know that the EU sets standards for membership, and Human Rights are one of those standards. If a nation applies to join the Union, Like Turkey, they can be rejected if they do not conform to the Human Rights requirements.

"Are you saying one of the states is the first among equals?
Which one?"

That should be obvious. California, They have the most representatives in the U.S. house (53 seats.).

Yes, you are correct that some problems I point out are endemic of all power structures, e.g. it is evitable someone has to lead, will identify their pressing issues, will formulate policy favorably slanted toward them.

The point I am trying to make that you are missing is that while these problem are endemic of any organization, it’s the SCALE that becomes an issue. If a town next to me doesn't take of their poor, will boo on them, but at least I can lobby my local board of planners to make sure my poor are taken care of.

If a Global government wants to tax the world, take money from me and my community to consolidate wealth for a space mission to the sun, while the poor in Africa are starving. there is very little a citizen like myself can do to convince the global structure to spend the money to help the poor starving children in Africa. And the task of convincing some sort of contingent of global citizens to lobby global government to fix this course of action is considerable harder compared to convincing a handful of citizens in my town.

Take into account all other problems endemic of bureaucracy I mentioned in my above reply and magnified on a Global scale; this would bring injustice and suffering to a hellish level.

You gave an example about the town next to you doing something, and you can still lobby your town's government.

And you will notice having a state government and a national government does not stop that, so neither would a global government.

You say a global government could waste money on something extravagant while people in africa starve.

NOW, wealthy governments in individual nations waste money on extravagance while people in Africa starve.

With a global government, there can BE support for the starving in Africa by having global standards of welfare and education.

With separate governments there can be no such standards- you have African nations with small corrupt governments that steal most of what is sent by charities to their nations.

Right NOW injustice and suffering are at a hellish level and there is absolutely NO recourse for change. With a global government, there would be.

Plus, as I said in another post, a global government would not be instantaneous. Like the EU, it would have standards, and nations would apply for membership.

Nations with third-world status would actively try to clean up their acts, end their human rights violations, show that they are trying to help their people, in order to become members and enjoy trading privileges.

Money will always be made by selling more weightloss products that can't work, don't work, and never will work. And when something does work it gets declared illegal, creating yet another Black Market to keep black market types employed outside the system.

Not to mention stuffing food with garbage the human body doesn't need but keeps us sick, so we know the medical professionals and hospitals will always keep making Big Bucks... plus geneticists being guaranteed a lucrative job trying to reverse the damage in some great futuristic way (big $$$).

Then you have Detroit building CARS WITH TWO ENGINES to keep maintained which means two engines breaking down, car mechanics needing more training and therefore as a result getting PAID BIG BUCKS. In a car wreck where today's car would only suffer some damage we'll be driving cars that one wreck will total its two engine system.

Okay, queue the insurance people => buy a new car.

I don't see many people suffering just the Consumer taking a beating. The Future is Great as long as ya make sure every time you have a choice between simple and complex you choose the complex.

Wars make money and lower populations...the "ELITE" love war!

That's just silly. Of course one can make money whether the currency is world currency or local currency. "Making money" is simply exchanging something of value for something else of value while making a profit over the cost of producing one's product. The basic economic meat and potatoes doesn't change simply because humanity has one form of currency. "Currency" is merely representative of some other value. Yes, many treat currency as though it has some innate value of its own.

It does not, although yes, currency can be a collectible with a value in an of itself. The general idea of currency, however, doesn't. It makes little to no difference what currency one uses as long as it genuinely represents some trade-worthy value.

How do we come to agreements with China on civil liberties? Explain where there will be some compromise made on their part. They will say F-U. We are the superpower now! Which is fine. We have what we need to be prosperous and defend ourselves. It'd be a good thing if we backed out of playing world cop. People died for the idea of a free America. In our lifetime all we have witnessed is the overreaching hand of the federal gov't imposing on our liberties. This nation was founded on the best of principles, and the idea that we should give them up to join the melting pot is ridiculous. Enough. I've never been the biggest flag waver in the crowd, but listening to this discussion makes me sick. We have been given a superb framework for governing a nation. Complete with the ability to change the things that we see fit to change. Realize what we have and take control of it.

If the objective is world peace then there is no other choice than a world government needs to be birthed. At present the world is broken, so those who prefer broken won't make out so well. There comes a time when change has to be embraced and yes, even believed in.

If such a "government" does not derive its powers from the rights and liberties of each and every individual it is charged to govern, i.e., the common "man", the guy and gal on the street, it offers nothing but control and misery because such a government would exist for its own sake - not for the sake of those governed. That was the original dream of the United States, but that is dream not yet fully realized and perhaps never will be.

Still, I'm a believer in the "one world government" idea, but only if human beings in general can mature significantly more than they are at present.

The UN suffers from Old Age, not the institution but the old men. The need for young blood is obvious. And do away with Nation identification and nameplates. Quit reinforcing which Nation is represented by Whom => otherwise they enter the building as separate, address issues as separate and nothing gets done. The UN disintegrates along national boundaries.

Possibly re-write the UN Charter that no Reps can be over 40YO except under special allowance => the Al Gore Allowance. He has established himself as a world thinker. Delegates would accrue "world thinker" points whenever they vote for something that favors other delegates more than their own country.

That's how they could keep their job.

none. Any savings in dollarthey had would be destoryed. The U.S. would be a third world country overnight if they dumped the dollar as the reserve currency

Don't think its possible, therefore a bad idea to attempt.

The concept is sound. It's simply human beings who find it difficult to implement because of certain common immaturities. It's not really that complicated - guaranteed individual rights and liberties, a common form of currency, equal rational and reasonable justice, no borders, etc. Essentially it's the idea of "the most liberty for the greatest number".

Human beings like to meddle in things not genuinely their business. They like to control that which they can control and more or less destroy that which they can't. I'd have to say the human species isn't mature enough for one-world government, but it IS in dire need of one.

It's not impossible, obviously, because human beings are capable of doing so and there are at least some individuals mature enough to create and live with it. Still, I'd agree it's not likely anytime soon. The species as a whole must mature a bit more before there are enough individuals who can make it happen and make it stick. I'm certain it will happen, but not likely in our lifetimes.

"Our lifetimes" need an extension cord then.

good idea can i come over sleep at your house. eat your food and smoke your weed??

here is a thought....what IF..that is what if its not them assimilating to you and what you know as normal instead THEY FORCE you to assimilate to them????????

then what?

"One world government/one world currency" doesn't necessarily imply communism. It's merely the suggestion that, if the laws are rational, reasonable and fair, they will be worldwide, not simply in isolated pockets, nor will they be irrational, unreasonable and unfair in some locations allowed to continue behaving in such ways out of some misplaced idea of "respect".

One has no warrant to demand respect for a culture inherently disrespectful.

"Socialism" ought not be confused with plain voluntary cooperation. It's right that individuals voluntarily work together for common goals. "Socialism" is essentially dictating what others have deemed "worthy goals" and dictating the means to achieve them. The only genuinely voluntary act in the process is the vote to install that control. "Communism" is simply "socialism" installed by force.

The U.S. seems like a "democracy" to many, but it operates much more like socialism. In any event "democracy" can become a nightmare if the majority is insane.

Just ask the views of all of those who have been victimized by majority opinion that happens to be popular but nonetheless horribly wrong.

First, you are confusing political systems with economic systems.

Second, the United States is NOT a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic. The constitution is the limit on mob rule- as shown by the overturning of prop 8 in California. People cannot vote away other people's rights.

Third, Communism is NOT Socialism installed by force, not even close.

Communism is when the government owns the MEANS of production- the government owns the land, the factories, etc. Everyone works FOR the government, and the government provides everything.

In Socialism, people work for companies, or own companies, or are self-employed- just like in Capitalism. But the government collects taxes, and provides programs to help those in need.

The United States IS Socialist, and has been ever since FDR.

We cannot rely on voluntary cooperation because humans, by their nature, are greedy selfish bastards.

Filthy rich don't care about the dirt poor, unless they can exploit them in some way. They only give to charities to get deductions on their taxes, or to enhance their public image.

Communism does not work, and Capitalism does not work; Socialism is NECESSARY to create a stable economy.

I'm all for fairness, of course, but I'm entirely against getting something unearned or undeserved. If, when one is speaking of "worker's rights" one is speaking about fairness for each and every individual - to include management and ownership of the workplace - that's splendid. If you mean "workers rights" in that the collective effort of the workers is allowed to hold the workplace hostage to get that which they genuinely haven't earned or deserve to the point of running a business into the ground, I'm against it.

I do not believe in the "right to a job". One has a right to work if one has talent, knowledge and skills and someone is willing to hire you. You do not have a "right to a job" simply because you're breathing and quite in spite of the fact you have little to no talent, knowledge, skill or experience or in spite of the fact an employer doesn't have a job needing filled.

No one owes you a living unless you've earned it.

I can assure you I have no confusion about these issues. Perhaps I dumbed down the topic too much for some. You are quite correct about the U.S. being a constitutional republic. Nevertheless, the common man/woman typically sees it a different way and will chime on and on about "democracy". I always like to point out that "democracy" isn't the ideal they believe it to be.

As for "communism", I'm well aware of the general definition of it, but historically, so-called "communist" regimes have been installed by force. They chime on and on about "worker's rights" when, in fact, it was and is really the same old game of privilege for the upper echelons and the "common man" is made a slave to that upper crust on threat of extinction.

Yes, I know full well that the U.S. is a mixed economy heavily skewed toward the socialist. Socialism is a welfare state installed by popular vote. There's nothing inherently capitalistic - or fair to the individual - about that.

No, human beings are not "by their nature" greedy selfish bastards. I and many others can hardly be described in such a fashion. If it was our "nature" to be such, we would be. The fact we are not means something else is at work in persons unlike us, i.e., intellectual laziness and either a lack of or an unwillingness to empathize and have compassion on the part of others. Acknowledge it or not, some human beings CAN be relied on to engage in respectful voluntary cooperation with one another - some, and I'd argue most, cannot. That there are so many who cannot or will not is no warrant to ignore the fact there are some or many others who can and will. Such disrespect is uncalled for.

Socialism isn't "necessary" for a stable economy. Certainly genuine laissez-faire capitalism has great potential for a prosperous culture and those who are capable and willing to respectfully deal with one another make it work in some places, at some times. It is those who cannot and will not relate to one another with respect and fairness who make government necessary to themselves. Respectful and fair human beings suffer with it but have no genuine need of it. "Socialism" seeks to take from others involuntarily to give to those who cannot or will not earn it. Yes, charity to others is a good thing, but "compulsory charity" is a contradiction. That's the nature of socialism.

"Communism" doesn't even pretend to be about charity. It's just brutal control for the sake of the privileged.

Agreed yet in the Real World you do have a percentage of "little to no talent, knowledge, skill or experience" so you either euthanize them or give em something productive to do even if it's only trimming shrubs. Or establish an impossible set of laws that is guaranteed to entrap them = Prison Time.

Sure, individuals may have little to no talent, knowledge, skill or experience - but that doesn't mean their lives belong to you to do with as you wish. Assuming they ask for it, one can always provide them with knowledge, skill and experience. Talent will show up on its own accord with time. And no, I'm not advocating giving these things without cost to them ... unless there is somehow a profit in doing so.

And by "profit", I don't necessarily mean a monetary profit. There is certainly a gain in putting a smile on the face of another. That gain is erased, however, if one is compelled to such "charity" by threats.

You say:
"historically, so-called "communist" regimes have been installed by force."

Historically, almost all governments were installed by force.

And there never has been a communist nation- as you said, there were wealthy party members, and poor people in bread lines. In true communism, everyone is "middle class". Communism could only work if everyone were perfect, loving caring individuals who want to contribute to society.

Capitalism can also only work if everyone were perfect, loving caring individuals who want to contribute to society.

This conversation reminds me of Candide.

Yes, there are some nice people out there- but the majority are not. It would be wonderful if most people were kind and good to others, and only a few criminals were out there to get caught.

That is not what humans are like.

Humans earn billion dollar salaries while fighting against giving their employees health care plans.

Power corrupts; government is necessary so that corruption is curbed.

If we had anarchy, it would look less like Utopia, and more like Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

Because of the nature of humanity as a whole, Socialism is the only thing that works.

Individuals are rewarded for contributing to society, and individuals are provided for so that they CAN contribute to society.

Compulsory charity is necessary because there is not enough voluntary charity. It's not about a handout, it's about a step up.

We know what society is like when Capitalism runs amuck- children working in factories, black lung, missing limbs, people forced to buy from the "company store" and going into debt to the company for more than their wages.

With only one of those two aspects (reward and support) without the other, we become unbalanced.

Exactly my point.

But both Communism AND Capitalism can never work for those exact same reasons.

Only Socialism can work, since it balances the two extremes.

They're actually looking into that. It'll be a chip that is embedded in your hand with your credit information stored, like swiping a bank card.

The existence of the Amero does not seem so ridiculous anymore.

What Bible does the Pope preach?!

I would agree to a certain extent. However when do you think most of the worlds nations will have their finances in order? Hell our debt has been spiraling out of control for the past 30 years...

It's going to take a while...who knows when?

Actually, now might be a very opportune time. When is it too early to create a currency that represents authentic value, not some imagined value like we essentially have today? I believe it is when one wishes to create an entirely new currency when one has a rare opportunity to create one that actually means something and dispense with those that do not.

That's not to say those planning such a change intend to do such a thing, but it is the prime opportunity to do so if that is their intention.

If it isn't, it ought to be. "Fake value" can only give one fake gains and fake losses thus rendering currency irrelevant.

Progress? Progress towards what?

Our country should remain independent and sovereign. Uphold our own Constitution and remain a bastion of freedom and liberty among the nations.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4th, 1801.

The world is becoming a different place than it was 300 years ago. As technology progresses the world will become even more interconnected and it will become more and more difficult for nations to be both prosperous and isolated.

Isolation isn't the goal. Advancements in technology and communication do not require us to forgo our sovereignty.

It's not the fear of progress, but rather assimilation...

resistance is futile.

Im not saying a one world government would be easy to govern but dividing the world into invisible boundaries is pretty crazy if you think about it. If youre on the other side of the line then you are not one of "Us" and that makes you one of "them" an outsider.

The concept of the Nation State is growing more and more antiquated as time goes on. Look at the European Union. Each Nation controls its own local laws but gives up a certain measure of sovereignty for more freedom. A world without borders is truly the way of the future.

To quote the great Albert Einstein "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

Everybody will need to watch the weekly training films to help make the transition to Dukes of Hazard rules. 1/3 of the week everybody gets a turn being in Jail, the other 3rd they're sitting at a kitchen table wolfing down fried chicken.

Paperwork & watching more training tapes til you get it right. Some of us get to be Bo, others get to be more like Luke, some women get to be Daisy Duke. A bunch of guys get to be the mechanic friend. No one has time left in the week to invade anybody.

If you want to invade somebody do it by yoself.