Yes they already have it- the Euro. But I don't know all the countries that are members for the EU.

The Euro has nothing to do with the UN though, it's to do with the EU. The currency's nearly dead though due to many of the bigger countries that changed to it wanting to change back to their former currencies.

I just can't see what people are trying to hold on too.EVERY civilization runs its coarse and ends up in history books.What is wrong with trying to unify world laws and commerce?It will happen someday,and if it doesn't I will assume its because we are all dead.


[edit on 29-4-2007 by FreeSpeaker]

Could the U.N. be planning to have a single Currency for its members, therefore basically creating a one world currency??

The UN is just a meeting place. They "acted" against the US invasion of Iraq, yet nothing happened. Simply said, Norway is a bigger danger to world peace than the UN.

If so we must assume U.N. is NWO???

What is the UN? An organization with unlimited power? No - the UN is all member states. Sure, the US, Chinese, Russian aspects may have some jurisdiction over the decisions made there, but formally, UN doesn't mean anything. If the UN is the NWO, then all 190+ member states are also NWO - you yourself are therefore NWO.

Yes they already have it- the Euro.

If they planned for a global currency, then why the euro?

I think at one time this was possible but the direction seems to have changed.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
I just can't see what people are trying to hold on too.EVERY civilization runs its coarse and ends up in history books.What is wrong with trying to unify world laws and commerce?It will happen someday,and if it doesn't I will assume its because we are all dead.

I may sound nice and conveinient in theory, but to achieve it would require all the nations to give up a key part of their sovereignty. It dilutes the democratic right of the citizens.

Would an American really like the 450 million europeans to have equal say in how the US is run? or the 1.5 billion chinese? Democracy just doesn't work so well when it tries to represent too many people. The US already suffers from this to an extent, and it's the key reason why various European states rejected the euro and the European constitution.

Government, to be relevent, fair, and effective, must, to an extent, be local.




[edit on 29-4-2007 by nowthenlookhere]

Democracy just doesn't work so well when it tries to represent too many people.

But there is a flaw with representative democracy too. Lets imagine that there is a country with 100 states and two candidates. Candidate A wins 2 votes in 51 states, so he has 102 votes, but candidate B wins 3 votes in the rest 49 states, plus 1 vote in the 51 states. This gives candidate B 198 votes. Candidate B has almost twice as many votes as candidate A, but A still becomes president, and can put the minority's wishes on the majority.

Government, to be relevent, fair, and effective, must, to an extent, be local.

I agree. Why couldn't this be put in practice on a global scale?

Originally posted by Orgler
I agree. Why couldn't this be put in practice on a global scale?

It already is.. that's basically what we have. One world with lots of sovereign, independent states, and that's how it works the best, in my view. Modern democracies, and the people in them, get along just fine, without needing to be pushed together into a single unit under a single government.

re: representative democracy, that's a different issue, and I agree fully with you on the problem you highlight. I also suggest the it would only be worse under a one world government, even if it was "democratic".