Aesa

I can understand that prospectmom. We (this movement) are quite literally attempting the greatest environmental shift for humanity, ever. We are attempting to, for the first time, create a society where no one "owes someone" for anything. We are attempting to create a culture where people are left to pursue true incentive, and that is their interests. The reality is, change will never happen unless the system collapses and people have lost confidence in the system. Right now, that is in the process of happening (don't take my word for it - do the research as best as you can when you can). Bottom line is that a monetary system has to maintain a labour force to keep the cycle of money going. As machines continue to automate all sectors, people will not be able to get jobs. When this happens, they either have to go on some form of permanent social services and essentially have limited resources their whole life - or we'll move to a system where the technology doesn't enslave people in such a way but frees them. It's all open to your consideration, and personal research. I'm not here to try and "convert" you to this idea (and this is why I don't like debating) but rather to offer you really well sourced information to consider. Unfortunately some of the people fervently debating in here don't care to check the information provided but are just interested in furthering an agenda against something they falsely feel threatened by.

I couldn't agree with you more. If you all educate yourself about sustainable technologies you'd see that they will cause the collapse of capitalism (above all it's other problems). Monetaryism may have embraced technology, but the technology that it embraces and benefits uses scarce resources (eg: oil) whereas Geothermal energy uses water, solar power uses the abundant energy of the sun, and wind power uses wind. Don't turn around and say 'those sources are weak, etc,' consult the information I've provided to see for yourself that that's untrue. Just one example from that being that the US department of energy has said that if wind power was used in just 3 states it would power the entire nation. Abundance doesn't have a price tag, scarcity does I'm the open minded one here. Open minded doesn't mean 'considering all points' but rather 'considering all points with the conditional requirement of near-empirical evidence.'

A refresh of material to consult: These films (free online) This movie (optional because you have to buy it) Economic paper on technological unemployment Comments on technological capabilities: Money: Some other stuff: (that's from the film you'd otherwise have to pay for)On top of that, there's also which is an important excerpt from Zeitgeist Addendum because it details information on the sustainable technologies being suppressed by our structure (because they're sustainable, and therefore unprofitable).Consult that information, (and more I will provide when/if necessary) and then we can pursue a fair and open minded discussion.

Perhaps the earliest gospels? You know, the Gnostics? Quite simply, you appear to be saying that someone can have the 'willpower' to shape their behaviour. When in reality, they're limited by what's available to them/what they chose to be interested in, etc,. The majority of people who get aids get it from just having that 'one try' at unprotected sex with a random. Sorry, my profile is long out of date. I don't deny that a Jesus of Nazareth lived, just that by the time the pen got to paper it was so distorted and mythologised to no end. Not really. Still environmental determinism, a trickle down effect. Not quite. Good and evil do exist but they don't exist WITHIN you. You're not born with anti-semitism, or bigotry, or greed, or hatred or elitism or violence. You pick those things up. They're evil, but it's not inborn. Nature is lawful, and organised. But not in a hierarchial way. This sums of natural organisation: [...]It is time to broaden our loyalties and affiliations beyond the narrow confines of the marketplace, tradition, and the nation-state to encompass the human species as a whole, along with the planetary environment that supports us all. It is time we view the earth as an indivisible organic whole, a living entity composed of countless forms of life, all brought together in a single community. I'm not even going to bother addressing all the other nonsense about the idea that the structure doesn't force corporations to be greedy because the evidence is there, it does. And, you need to go back to psychology class. Human nature does not exist any further than this: Self-preservation (the human being will do whatever it needs to do in order to survive and continue it's species.) You put a human in an environment where it has to fight to live, and it will. “GREED AND COMPETITION ARE NOT THE RESULT OF IMMUTABLE HUMAN TEMPERMENT…GREED AND FEAR OF SCARCITY ARE IN FACT BEING CREATED AND AMPLIFIED … THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCE IS THAT WE HAVE TO FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER IN ORDER TO SURVIVE” -Bernard Lietaer, Founder of the EU Currency System Don't exist, but that's a whole other discussion. That's utter nonsense. Actually this is what would be the case if we were creatures ruled by "human nature." Because it can't change, since it's something inborn. Humans are adaptive creatures, which means their behaviour is determined the environment, and our cultures are just continuing attempts to better adapt and live in the world. Unfortunately it has to be, that's it's very nature. Unless it's in the sense of you have a collective 'self-interest' which is what an RBE would orient society toward, but that's really a derogation of the term because that wouldn't be a "me, me, me" / "take, take, take" self interest. You're quite right. But every sector is now being affected by outsourcing/redundancy/automation (because of industry's priority of profit) and unfortunately the automation is happening very quickly and there is no new sector to take all these jobs. Please read that paper before you make any further comments on this issue. Technology can only be sustained in Capitalism so long as it is profitable, and you cannot profit off something that is efficient sustainable and abundant. This is why sustainable energy and electric cars are suppressed. Nope, scholarship generally agrees that Deism is the parent of other forms of modern 'non-belief'. Actually, it's not a capital g. They believe in a god that created the universe and then just 'disappeared' and doesn't give a crap in regards to human affairs. People don't just 'wish' to do that. The overall consensus is that people are lured into violent and destructive behaviour by the culture. To quote just the example from the movements manual: To confound this sort of stuff, you need look no further than all the news stories about crime rates going up and church attendance going up during an economic downturn. Incorrect, none of our problems are political. That is a complete fallacy. I am absolutely sure that you haven't consulted the materials I've directed you to, especially in my most recent posts and in my PM to you. And if you haven't then you hold no water in this discussion - it's like debating about Islam without ever having touched a copy of the Qur'an. I'm not continuing this discussion with you until you can say you've done so. Because we're ultimately going in endless pointless circles filled with ignorance about things such as human behaviour, which is very important to understand.

Too bad that it's revived it, then.Fictional social theory? Well, you can conclude that - but it obviously represents you going on a big "self-preserve." Why? Because technology is going to kill Capitalism (no, monetaryism in general), and that is that. If it doesn't, then we're going to have to paralyse it pretty soon. We're going to have to ban nanotechnology and robotics and all sorts of other things. Technological Unemployment is the end of capitalism. Don't take my word for it, here's an economic paper on the issue to get you started http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/georgd/JMpaper_duernecker.pdf This is why abundant energy such as Geothermal Energy is suppressed - because it's so abundant that it could provide for the entire planets energy needs endlessly. If that's utilised in a Capitalist society at it's most efficient level, you couldn't put a price on it. This is what machine automation and sustainable technology is doing. This is why most ATM's don't cost you money for transactions - because they're available everywhere and no one would use them if you put a price on them, they'd still rely on the human teller. On top of that; if you want a world that's sustainable, where the goods and services produced are efficient (devoid of planned obsolescence, etc,) and where there are equal rights (resources abundant for all) then you can't maintain monetaryism in any form - for the nature of the structure simply goes against all those things. Yeah, you're totally right. Available technology being put to use is a veritable utopia. /sarcasmSomething you need to think about is that Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and the others are all the same. They all use the same things money; prisons; police; cruelty; law; politics; military; corporate power; cookie-cutter education,etc,. The only difference between Communism and Capitalism is the amount of control by the State. (and goodness, our cultures are tightening the reigns on us everywhere you look - and that's because they have to protect themselves from their own failures somehow) I get the feeling that you haven't watched these films, because you seem to be in the dark about the true state of technology. If you haven't watched them then why are you bothering to discuss these issues? You're coming from an uninformed perspective. Here is Roxanne Meadows in two short videos talking about the present state of technology: And the purpose of money which will help you begin to recognise why sustainable technology will implode such a system.And here is a discussion on the Scientific Method:

Actually I'm glad you've said that. You've managed to take away a lot the materialism that I thought you attached to prayer. In other words, there are a lot of people who say something like "Thank God for that aspirin" (as an example) when in reality God has nothing to do with the effect of the aspirin - if He/She did you wouldn't need it in the first place. If you define prayer as a means of spiritual communication, then I'm all for that. I think this is a good explanation for even why Atheists 'pray in a crashing plane' sometimes -- they are seeking some connection with a oneness. Which really aren't concrete because everyone, including Mormon church members I've met, all have subjective views on what they are; their relevance and how they should be understood. That's like saying "taste is something devoid in food." You can't use the term 'Christian theology' like that without giving a really strong term of reference because Christian theology is like a grocery store (granted, this occurs in all religions and traditions but it's by far most rampant in Christianity). No they aren't. They're based on your "frame of reference." You cannot know how to, say, become a bodhisattva or fulfill spiritual jihad (the good kind, for the sake of discussion) if you haven't been exposed to those concepts in the first place. No, I don't and I'm sorry you think this. I am highly religious, I view the entire existence as divine in and of itself and our religions as expressions of that amazing thing which is the human being. However, this isn't a discussion of my beliefs. I do, however, view religion as (like all other established self-preserving systems) having the propensity to be very dangerous if it has a false basis in history. When things like this occur, people will go ahead and acknowledge that their's is the only correct way and die for their beliefs (as an example) - not only that they will be silly enough to think that it's up to them to proselytise the entire planet yet on the same page (if they know anything of comparative religion) acknowledge that their religion shares so many common threads both in values and the stories they believe in that it is utterly lidicrous to claim to be 'the only true one' when religions of the present and past are telling the same stories which are (when you get into it) basically pure allegory and based on mans tendency to deify the world around him. However, I can't force people to recognise that they're all connected (and this is the 'problem' religion sometimes causes - that they don't recognise this) because it's up to each individual to recognise that conclusion. Fundamentalism, is what is dangerous - it's the cause of the crusades, of ridiculous notions from the Pope that condoms make aids worse (it's not promiscuity that causes aids (especially if protection is involved - why doesn't someone tell him this?), etc,. Is not inherent though. :) And, if we're talking about my views on 'good' and 'evil' they do not exist and are created by the culture - this is the logical consequence of the reality that our behaviour is shaped/warped by the environment. That's a semantic interpretation of nature. You can't do that, because in that respect, nature cant answer back. It's not the corporation that's 'bad' (infact in a resource-based economy things such as industry would be a more unified body that works together to make the best possible products) but the system that forces it to be bad. Why don't corporations care when they have an oil spill, or are logging forests or continue to pollute the environment by exploiting oil reserves? Because they can't afford to. They're not evil, their behaviour is just generated by the mode of operation (money where profit has to come before human concern in almost all cases). Utter nonsense. I love this. Many of the pagan religion of the "old world" were not organised religions and by all reports they lived in very sophisticated cultures. Oh, and, pagan cultures coming to mind I'd like to quote Fresco on something because I think it makes a great point: This is a very revealing example of how society shapes values and behaviour because today we would view such a thing as totally reprehensible (yet, it's still fine for us to kill millions of innocents in the Midlde East - but I digress). Science corrupts society? Hmm, only in the wrong hands. All of what Science creates is an inanimate object and it's corrupted today because we live in a totally warped culture. There is no such thing as "Kind Capitalism" it is all greedy and it has to be because the core tenet of Capitalism is to pursue one's self interest. Apparently this promotes the culture's interests, however as we've seen nothing is further from the truth as we continue to lose more freedoms, see an increase in crime, and so forth. It's going to happen whether you like it or not because this whole system is collapsing. Granted, it might not be quite there yet (things might go up again once or twice more) but it's not far away. You absolutely will have to suppress all of the high technology I've talked about, and oppose machine automation by industry and so forth - if you want to maintain Capitalism. It's collapsing, not because the government has no idea how to maintain their system - but because it's obsolete at an increasing level to how our culture is run. This is not an opinion. Sustainable technology spells the end of a competitive, scarcity-driven culture. We can infer greatly though. You have to take into account that these men were, by the standards of their culture, absolute genuises. They accepted a deistic God, which is essentially the Colonial parent of Atheism. I say that because they didn't believe anything 'about' god (notice, not capital G) - which is exactly in line with Atheism/Agnosticism of today. I apologise for the out of context quote. I looked in a few place and it appeared sound. You have no need to trust anything I say to you - verify it for yourself. I'm aware of that. Don't you find that he recognised it as a means of social control and loved it is a little disconcerting? No offense - but too bad by this rate it's going to take thousands of years at best to catch on. I'm sorry - that's a habit of my horrid sleeping pattern (which I always fall into when on holidays). Main problem is I don't have a copy of a Bible here and the only one available is this huge one from the 1800's which I'm not getting out just to find some verses (so if I'm going to add verses it'll have to wait until next week).

You're quite right. :) I was addressing the topic, not you particularly.

"In Indian religions and society, an acharya (IAST: ācārya; Sanskrit: आचार्य; Pali:acariya) is a guide or instructor in religious matters..." Very appropriate. You can find radio interviews with her online Christ in Egypt 10/13/2008 - Shadows in the Dark on Blog Talk Radio And here is her work put into a film (that's only part of the film) that has had over 100 million views and counting so far YouTube - Zeitgeist - Part 1(2/4) YouTube - Zeitgeist - Part 1(3/4) YouTube - Zeitgeist - Part 1(4/4) - those are cuts of the sections relevant to this discussion (you can find the film in fullness at Zeitgeist - The Movie) Ofcourse, the information in that video constitutes the combination of the works of scholars over hundreds of years. It's also available through more reputable companies such as barnes and noble Christ In Egypt, D. M. Murdock, Book - Barnes & Noble By the way, I'm not trying to 'sell' this to you. Just important information worth considering, taking into account how well sourced it is.

That would make sense. But at the same time it makes them 'mythology by association' You cant claim to have the right story if there are sources that predate your own and, on top of that, can be all too often naturalistically explained.

She uses that alias, for the most part, because it represents a declaration of independence of sorts. You see an Acharya (off top of my head, will need to verify) is a term that is reserved for Indian men. And I'm sure you're aware that good scholarship has nothing to do with trust. You verify scholarship by citation.

Okay then, go contract aids and see if prayer gets rid of it. I'm not even kidding."Romans 3:23 (New International Version) 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Sin, is I'm sure you'll recognise wickedness and that which separates man from God. I can quote plenty more but it's late and I should be in bed. If you want to maintain capitalism you're going to have to paralyse technology permanently. As technology continues to automate, the need for humans in the workforce will be continually diminished. There is now robotics available to the effect that it can fertilise, water and pick fruits from plants without human involvement - it's just a matter of time before industry picks this up. McDonalds has begun the automation of it's restaurants in certain locations in the US. If people cannot get jobs, they will not have purchasing power and this will spell the 'final failure' of monetary economics - unless ofcourse you want to put these people on permanent social benefits (and god, imagine the crime rate then!!). You cannot maintain capitalism in an environment that creates abundance, because it was designed for an environment of scarcity and really no technology at all. Too bad they have the worst track record for upholding it in your government. It is the economic system. You collapse capitalism (which it is now) and that's the 'end of america' as we know it, period. America's corrupt corporations are what has created it as a superpower, nothing more and nothing less. And by the way, they're inherently corrupt because this system forces them to be. Getting onto the topic of Constitutions, they're pretty disgusting things anyway because they're open to a very convenient thing called interpretation. Sorry, but they do. Christ contradicts himself like crazy. This makes sense, since so many people have given their accounts of the whole story. Actually we equate equal rights and equal access with morality. Something monetary economics by it's very need to put the profit priority over human concern can never do. It's technology that enables us to create this abundance.If everyone does not have their health, medical, food, water, and other such needs fulfilled at all times you have an imbalance and equal rights are nothing more than a paper proclamation. If you don't 'believe' Science and Technology is responsible for -all- the betterment in your life. Drop it all right now and go live in a cave, and you aren't even allowed to use something as simple as a wheel or a pen or a piece of parchment - because they're all technological innovation. You wont do it because you know how absurd it sounds. That's a totally illogical premise. For fundamental truth to exist it has to be established and unchanging (completely revealed) from the outset. Such a thing never has and never will occur. I'm not saying good and evil as concepts cannot exist, but if you have agency you cannot be 'good' or 'evil' in and of yourself - that's a total contradiction to say otherwise because if you are inherently evil then you have to be evil forever because that evil force would never be able to be 'taken over' or controlled by the opposite 'good' force because it is inherent and things inherent cannot be changed (this where the concept of instinct comes from) ... which means that behaviours are inherited traits. Your concept of organised religion appears to be one that differs to mine. Organised religion, by it's very nature is one which is involved with the established power structures on some level or another - so it's much the same organised in the same way politics is.Every Western religion is like this to some degree or another. Whether they use advertising or pressure politicians or try to interfere their beliefs with Science or run businesses (as in, the hierarchy of a church) ... etc,. Established religion, here then, are merely run like other corporations. Which is anti-established religion. Established religion is involved with the runnings of society to the point of being a pressure group in some way or other to manipulate the content of legislation (among other things), "unestablished religion" is not ... it is merely concerned with it's spiritual message.Essentially what you're doing right now is attaching a great deal of ego to your (likely) long-held beliefs. This is understandable as belief generally trains people to do so. Summary: If you want to sustain capitalism (or any other form of monetary economics), you must indefinitely paralyse the advance of technology in areas such as nanotechnology, machine automation and sustainable energy to name but a few. Essentially because those things will implode monetary economics. Take America's corporate power, and it's ability to have veto power on a lot of decisions made in our world (due to the amount of capital it holds - which is essentially made out of thin air by a joke of a banking system) and there is nothing left in regards to it's power and influence. Don't believe me? You don't have to, just sit back and enjoy the ride. By the way, our discussion is fast becoming a debate. I'm not interested in trying to coerce you into this way of thinking. That doesn't work. Real understanding comes through arriving at realisation by one's self - otherwise you're just relying on what's being handed down to you by another, and that is dictatorship in purity. So, while I will continue to respond in a discussion manner - I will -not- debate you to no end, as it's totally inappropriate. --- In regard to separation of Church and State, I think the words of the Deistic/Atheistic founding fathers put it into context (or at least begin to): "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" - Benjamin Franklin "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!" - John Adams "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" - Thomas Jefferson "The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." - Thomas Paine If the Zeitgeist Movement is anti-religious, then by comparison - they want you dead. Further reading in that regard Separation of church and state - tribe.net "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" ~ The Treaty of Tripoli ratified by John Adams 1797 "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma" ~ Abraham Lincoln "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, & I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." ~ Thomas Jefferson "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." ~ James Madison Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785 "...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry..." "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 March 1789)" - Thomas Jefferson "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb in a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." ~ Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams

Don't stop there. Feel free to consult her, and other's, scholarly work.

There wont be per-se, but since the culture will be free to do as it pleases in such a sense - if people wanted a worship center they would be able to have it built.In essence, people wont have to live in one of the sustainable cities either. They could chose to live wherever they pleased. All such things, such as religion, would be allowed to 'go back to nature' and 'be what they'll be.' Actually, the Bible says that everyone (including the faithful) will always walk in crooked paths. That's rubbish. America is probably the most corrupt nation on the entire planet (all are, but America comes up trumps). America's success has occurred, mostly through it's indifferent corporate empire that is continually exploiting the world. It has nothing to do with a 'sound government' or 'good values' (because for the most part America's institutions and corporations are devoid of both those things - and in a monetary-based economy it is those things that are the true power and image of the culture). That's the problem with basing Christ in literal history. The Bible/BoM and other scriptures demonstrate clearly that he has been written as a composite character.One one end he says I bring peace. Then on the other end he says I bring division, a mans enemies will be in his own household. You cant have both. Unfortunately these are superficial. Take some classes in comparative religion, or do some comparative religion in an armchair fashion and you start to realise that they all (on the whole) uphold the same values. This rings true. If that's evil then you essentially are saying you wish to paralyse technology.However, I think Mormons can actually relate to that statement a bit. What is being talked about there is the reality that all knowledge will undergo change because all things in this universe are emergent (for example, an engineer who trained 70 years ago couldn't get a job today) and subject to change. Mormons, who believe in continuing revelation should understand this. This is absolutely true. Religion tends to perpetuate the idea of inherent 'good' or 'evil' - which by the way if you have agency is a total contradiction. It also tends to perpetuate (though not always) literalism -- in other words "every word in the Bible is literally true." This is what causes the silly idea that Evolution is not true ... it's not that it's not true, it's just that many of the religious are so materialistic that they wont let go of the idea that god created the world in one earthly week. Oh, and the world is 6000 years old. There's so many examples. What you're not quite realising is that religion is only institutional because of the monetary system, because of politics and because of the legal system to name just a few.I mean - America is supposed to be anti-establishment religion (separation of 'church' and 'state'), this is the same thing. If you would like to know about whether religious centers would be 'allowed' (which makes me laugh, because there will be no such restriction in this culture) why not e-mail, phone, or write to The Venus Project yourself? link I can assure you there are many, many Christians who are involved in this direction -- and don't take my word for it, ask them. This actually aligns with Christianity. Jesus talks many times about fulfilling our values, and not just talking about them. (It's late however, so I'm not going to particularly cite them tonight).Thank-you for your critical discussion, though, this will be helpful for others to read. P.S.: If you want a quick answer from TVP I'd suggest a phone call because they have been inundated with e-mails since the beginning of the movement.

Strength in action (making the best possible decision), strength in communication?

What a load of BS. (Bad Science) All I got to say.

Which God?

That's easy to understand, but it's untrue. Children do not need to be programmed with moral codes. This is why we have such a despotic society today (one of the many reasons, anyway).

"Destined to be a classic enjoyed by both the professional scholar and the layperson, this comparative religion book contains a startling perspective of the extraordinary history of the Egyptian religion and its profound influence upon the later Christian faith. Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection by D.M. Murdock, also known as "Acharya S," uses a massive amount of primary sources and the works of highly credentialed authorities in relevant fields to demonstrate that the popular gods Horus and Jesus possessed many characteristics and attributes in common. Drawing from thousands of ancient Egyptian texts in an assortment of translations along with the original language, as well as modern research in a number of other languages, controversial independent scholar of comparative religion and mythology D.M. Murdock puts together an astonishing amount of fascinating information that shows many of our most cherished religious beliefs and concepts did not appear suddenly out of the blue but have long histories in numerous cultures found around the globe, including and especially in the glorious Land of the Pharaohs." Thoroughly looking forward to getting my copy. I love comparative religion. If anyone else buys it let me know so we can pursue discussion about it. :)

"I think the key is letting children experience the consequences of their choices, good and bad, all along." And to me, if we're talking from a Mormon perspective, that sounds about as sound as Mormon doctrine can get. Don't you [Mormons] believe that were hear to learn 'good' from 'evil'? "teach her what's right and wrong at an early age." Problem is that this [right and wrong] is a very subjective experience, even to people who adhere to the same gospel.

It's always been for the most part the same. Just that it wasn't surveyed in the past, and it was all 'hush-hush.' Your friend next door just 'went on a 9 month vacation.' This always makes the problem worse. You end up with kids who have bad nerves, don't know how to interact with people, etc,. You need to either help your child find a 'mid-way' and have a personal ethical code of experience, or let it go to nature.If you're teaching a child "Oh, but this is God's law - you can't do that!!1!!" you're programming them. If you really want to celebrate the idea of religious freedom, let your kids decide for themselves. It's -always- the kids that are mentally suppressed that have more social, mental and other problems later on in life.

There's a 'clan' of us. The thing that needs to be recognised, though, regardless of belief is that we all require the same necessities to life.

Stop this false idea that it's "Obama" doing it. It's not. Bush would do the same if he was in office, because the political leadership has to serve vested interests. They are two political parties, but wings of the same eagle.

Haven't people got something better to do than hunt for chocolate?

Well, that's where a resource-based economy comes in. :) Capitalism is as equally flawed as all of the other social systems, which in reality are all just variants of monetary economics. Money is, in this time, completely counterproductive to our survival and will only continue to be moreso. All it takes for change is for people to change their minds, a structure is only as relevant and powerful as people think it is. There is no reason why everyone cannot be involved in this direction.

For the majority of them, it's just what Ron Paul proposes. Monetary reform, election reform, etc,. You see, the original American Revolution (as Benji Frank said) was to escape the Central Banking model that King George had forced the colonies to use (borrow money from the central bank of England) - so basically they want to go back to the real free market. Unfortunately, this can only work for a very short while unless we paralyse technological automation forever because the automation of technology basically spells the end of the monetary system because it's going to continually displace people and leave them without purchasing power. I'll provide sources of info on this sort of stuff if anyone is interested. In the true free-market, the money is not created by a central bank (and certainly not a private bank such as The Fed). Unfortunately for the people who advocate this, it's a model that was made back when we were a sea-faring, horse-and-cart civilisation and it wont work very well at all with our culture (at least not for long) because we're so ahead of that sort of stuff.