The form of currency we use as money is not really the problem. Money itself is--the idea that goods and services must be exchanged for other goods and services (or something that represents those goods and services); the "tit-for-tat" principle, if you will. I'll give you something only if you give me something of comparable "value" (another arbitrary cultural designation).

Humanity doesn't need to start exchanging tangible goods with a mutually-accepted, culturally defined value such as gold, etc. We've done that before. Look at what has developed from it. Going back to how things used to be isn't going to change anything--in fact, it's a little crazy if you ask me.

Which brings me to what some libertarians refer to as "true capitalism" or "anarcho-capitalism"; that is, an economy completely free from state interference. I'm all for getting the state as out of our lives as possible (completely, preferably), however even if this is accomplished, you'd still have us dealing with some form of "capitalism".

Capitalism, in whatever form strikes your fancy, is an unsustatinable economic system. It is based on infinite growth in a world of finite resources. It doesn't take a quantum mechanics student to figure out that things just won't work that way, and the end result--the consolidation of resources into the hands of a few--will always be the same. It doesn't matter if the state is involved or not. The system will eventually consume itself.

But I digress. Again, the currency used is irrelevant. It's the idea of using money in the first place. Rather than trying to make our currency more stable and equitable, we should focus on the principle itself.

Give of yourself and your resources freely, asking for or expecting nothing in return. Money itself is what needs to be destroyed, not the abstractions we use to represent it.

Well, with our present national debt, money has become Yenom.