I think the Confederation was a good idea and with a few changes I
think we would do real good today to go back to it. Look a lot of
people in the EU are rethinking the Union as it is and they still
have their national soveriehnt for the most part. Those that did not
go on the Euro for the most part are glad they did not because like
the dollar it to is down against most of the other WEstern European
currecies still being used, although the Euro is not down as much as
the dollar. Malta was scheduled to drop their Lira and go on the Euro
in a couple of years but I bet they change their
mind.
A poll was taking in Germany with a majority said they wished
Germany had not gone on the Euro. Stores in Italy have started to
take the Italian Lira
again.
I would say the Federal Reserve and the EU central Bank is
worried plus I doubt if Paul Voulker will get his single world
currency anytime soon.--- In [email protected], "David
Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Even with the knowledge we now have, I still maintain that the only
choices available to Americans in 1788 were a US government (Articles
of Confederation, Constitution or some other alternative, none of
which was chosen by the Founding Fathers) British, French or Spanish
domination or the mercies of the merciless Indian savages. NOTA was
not an option in those circumstances. Nature abhors a vacuum.
>
> For life and liberty,
> David Macko
>
>
> NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You
have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of
the current President.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ma ni
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:14 AM
> Subject: RE: Hard Questions was Re: [Libertarian] Re: Ron Paul: a
Good Thing for the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Part
>
>
> I think here's the variable causing the conflicting answers. Look
> what we are doing right now and the advantage it gives us.
> Hindsight is 20/20, especially with computers. Of course the
> choices of history WERE limited to those who lived it, but one of
> the main reasons was lack of information and communications
> technologies. Is the question "what would you have chosen, had
> you had the knowledge you have now", or "what would you have
> chosen, had you only had the best knowledge of the time"? And
> even then, what are the chances you would have had the best
> knowledge of the time? VERY SLIM indeed, I imagine. In other
> words, are "you" going back in time as yourself with your current
> knowledge, or going back in time as a person/brain/knowledge of
> the time? Big difference! The biggest limitation on any choice is
> what you know.
>
> -Mark
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
>
> On 1/19/07, David Macko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In real world in 1788, NOTA was not an option for the American
> people
>
> I think the choices you presented:
>
> "Would you have rather been ruled by the British, French or
> Spanish
> monarchies or the merciless Indian savages?" vs US federalized
> government
>
> were not the only choices at that time. In fact, many Amricans
> lived
> fairly free until Washington crushed them in the Whiskey
> rebellion
> (damn that Alexander Hamilton!!!)
>
> > ...
> > We will never restore liberty until we can successfully cope
> with reality.
>
> I take your point, and I agree, but not in the way I think you
> mean
> it. Think of this: facing the cold, savages may have only had the
> 'realitistic' choices of 'huddle in the cave, freeze, or wrap
> yourself
> in animal skins'. But some thought of more choices - and learned
> to
> control fire. Some thought of other choices - and learned to make
> cloth.
>
> Humans shape our own realities. We will never be really free
> until we
> can envision freedom in the way that the first savage to control
> fire
> envisioned a hearth and a firepit and fuel and the other things
> and
> skills neccessary to maintain fire safely.
>
> Our job - one of our jobs - is to help people look beyond the
> obvious
> 'realistic' choices to a deeper realism - the one man creates for
> himself.
>
> > This in no way implies that we should not have and
> > continue to promote ideals as you are doing quite well.
>
> Thank you, David. I enjoy your comments, and appreciate that you
> can
> have a heated discussion without becoming angry.
>
> --
> Susan Hogarth
> http://www.colliething.com
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
