1 vote

So how do I answer this one?

A young girl i know who used to support Ron paul sent me this and said I should stop supporting him. “There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency…. The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights…. The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation.” — Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001
Source: http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/governments.html




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He is making a distinction,

He is making a distinction, that is all. In fact, I suspect that the young lady holds much the same thought pattern in regard to this distinction. In short, he is saying that a universal voluntary system of liberty is nothing to fear.. a system of voluntary contracts and a system of exchange that cannot be manipulated by arbitrary human authority within political systems. He is rejecting a world wide authoritarian system and saying that the concept of a world wide system is not the issue. The issue is the influence of corrupt and ultimately arbitrary human authority in control of such a system.

This isn't advocating for a

This isn't advocating for a global currency, it's just a rebuttal. I think he is stating it the way he is as a rebuttal to "We need a global currency". Paul is saying you can have a global currency, it's called gold.

It's just like his quote about being able to buy gas for a dime. If you didn't know what point he was trying to make, it almost sounds like he seriously thinks he could get gas down to a dime.

This is why context always

This is why context always matters.

He wasn't talking about a one world government

Here is a link to his speech in its entirety (without the cleverly placed ellipsis). Be forewarned that the person who posted the video is, in my opinion, a tool, but I digress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH3_Lcfeac

He's merely speaking out against our current system and promoting global commerce and sound money (would we expect anything less from him :))

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Her problem is she read the first sentence but is not educated

enough to understand the rest.

I just wrote a nice long point for point explanation for you to pass on to her, but for the 9,000th time this week, my wifi connection dropped as I hit "save" and I lost the whole damned thing.

The short version is that when Dr. Paul says "free trade" he means FREE trade - not government managed trade that is called "free trade." i.e. - he doesn't mean NAFTA.

By "globalization" Paul is talking about the ultimate division of labor along the lines of Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations not corporate raiders taking advantage of differences in nationalistic regulations to exploit labor.

By "single world currency" Dr. Paul is referring to gold and silver which the market has already decided up for the the last 5000 and 500 years respectively as true, real money.

Your friend needs to learn what mercantilism is, and what the free market or laissez faire is. She will then see that what she fears by those buzz words is not from the free market, but from mercantilist policy that we are still following from the bygone era of monarchs.

It is saying we need a sound

It is saying we need a sound money policy, world-wide. It says the IMF plan can never substitute for free trade. She must be misreading it.

The Constitution doesn't

The Constitution doesn't permit our government to do anything she mentioned, #1.

#2, I would recommend her read The Creatue from Jeckyll Island by G. Edward Griffin if she thinks there is nothing to fear by streamlining the power over the world into one government and one currency. Good intentions have led to the death of a lot of people over our history.

It would never work, does she not see how the Middle East has reacted to our presence over there? How will we react to a Chinese or Russian presence here?

Just how long would it take for the NWO global currency to lose

it's commodity backing and become totally fiat, like FRNs?

Not much longer than it took me to post this.

Did you misread Ron Paul's words?

I don't think he's looking for a piece of paper backed by anything. He wants a market determined currency which he knows at least for now will be actual gold and silver coin - not banker or government issued paper allegedly "backed" by gold and silver.

The problem I have is with the phrase

"voluntarily and universally accepted". Seems like an oxymoron, as any voluntary system would allow you to accept or reject the form of money offered in a transaction.

Based on Paul's HR 1098 Competition in Currency bill, I tend to agree with you that he wants the market to decide what currencies are used.

Maybe his remarks from 2001 were snipped out of context, as others in this thread have suggested.

I guess "universally" was a bit over the top. Of course,

someone might refuse it. And that's fine.

But we all know if governments got out of the money business and took their banking buddies with them, the market would quickly settle and trade in gold and silver. And it would be nearly "universal." At least, it would be enough so to qualify to meet his comment.

“There’s nothing to fear from

“There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency…" ???

Those concepts in and of themselves are harmless.

Their implementation is what determines whether the mass of the people live through liberty or follow tyranny.

Cheese and Rice people, read the entire quote please!

You obviously suffer her affliction of too much TV and not enough reading.

May I suggest Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. It is the first book on economics ever written. After that, you'll understand a WHOLE lot more.

Was that young girl

a product of the DOE public school system? If you must answer her, tell her to put her brain back inside her head. Dr. Paul is correct about that, too!

yes, we should absolutely

yes, we should absolutely reject a global currency controlled by one global bank. It's silly to assume that a few bankers will actually do what's best for the people. not to mention it will ultimately lead to America losing it's soverignty. I am highly suspect of a Ron Paul supporter supposedly leaving of the issue of sound money. Ron has never hidden his desire for a free market solution to money. If they left for this reason then they never were to begin with.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

easy enough

if you take the power over money away from creatures like the fed, individuals will have the power over their own lives and not be the subjects of a financial cartel. The type of commodity currency RP describes canNOT be created out of thin air - 'money from thin air' is the problem, your friend probably hasn't gotten that far yet in their understanding - yet.

what's the question?

Sounds about right to me.

Ron Paul 2012