Have you seen Zeitgeist?

Well, "....pointless little platitudes...inaction" Thanks for starting off with the personal attack. I know with whom I'm dealing. I hope you feel better about yourself and secure in your superiority to me. And if you feel it is so, then it is truth, correct?. I guess once all the knuckle-draggers are bred out, hunted down, and sterilized or killed the utopia of a "more enlightened humanity" will be achieved. I mean, selective breeding does give rise to better citizens.

We do have some agreement on what is wrong, but our solutions will digress because you appear to approach problems from the view of globalism, collective rights, collective or global responsibilities, etc. I tend to have more faith in the individual to find solutions. There can be cooperation amongst the nations, but global governance is not the answer nor will that provide viable solutions. So what solutions do YOU have to offer? It's easy to say this must change.

The monetary instability would be cured through a one world bank? How else is everyone going to share equally? Well, we do have the IMF. That's worked out really well, if you are a member of the board. Do you actually believe that achieving global "economic justice" is going to bring up those people who live on $2.00 a day to your level? No, the "economic justice" continuum works in an inverse manner. To achieve and sustain global "economic justice" redistribution of what you have downward is the way it is done. Your economic worth will approach their level. Then everyone is economically equal, because there is only a finite capital globally. Now, if you want to live with less, if that'll make you feel good about yourself, fine. I believe in individual initiative: you know, "If you build it they will come." "Economic justice" breeds mediocrity and lack of initiative. That was evident in the old Soviet Union. Even the PRC had to rework that one. Why? I guess it is because the people were not "more enlightened", and wanted to live better, with more conveniences. they saw the end of the Soviet Union and had to approach a quasi-free market system to keep the proletariat from the gates.

There are doers and there are the complacent. There are the leaders and there are the followers. You will never achieve a "more enlightened society" unless the Self is controlled or conditioned. This is not individual freedom; it is not freedom at all. I do not subscribe to collective freedom. That freedom is too easily taken away. Mankind does not work that way. I can guarantee conflict when a few decide what is best for the many. The French Revolution was the product of The Enlightenment---so was the guillotine. And in the New World so was the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Both revolutions were born of an more enlightened humanity, but both were filled with conflict.

We probably agree on oil and fossil fuels, but, I am sure you see a global solution, based not on what is practical, but on what is dictated by a group of elitists, (Well, they consider themselves such.), and by global consensus. No nuclear energy, no experimentation with coal products. All we can use are solar, wind and electricity. Really? Who says so? Incandescent light bulbs are phased out, but the "green" solution has mercury and must be disposed of as a bio-hazard. Sometimes the cure is worse than the sickness. Electric cars are a practical solution? Well with a 3,000 mile extension cord, maybe. The cost of the roadway infrastructure to support these vehicles would be unaffordable. and unmaintainable. Give me a practical, global, and sustainable enlightened solution. Here we go with environmental justice. I won't even go there. What works on the veldt of Africa will not work in Detroit or in Siberia. How is the environmental justice going to work? Will we all equally freeze and sweat as determined by the "more enlightened" world dictators?

Technical unemployment is interesting; I agree it is a problem, but it is brought on by us, our own worst enemies. Business is very similar to the concept of survival of the fittest. To survive, one must adapt to changes in the environment, or to predators, etc. Businesses do this in order to survive. In America, especially, business has always had to adapt. That is why American business was successful and the model for about 100 years. This was due to governmental interference or "help". The unions also wanted their pound of flesh, and took it. Granted, unions did have a place in the past. In order to survive the new environment, maintain quality, meet a growing demand for products, something had to change. The adoption of machines to the assembly line replaced a number of workers and preserved the bottom line. The other adaptation was to go off-shore and use a cheaper source of labor. Maintaining the status-quo meant loss of entire businesses and the ability to compete in the global market place. Of course this was not good for the US workers, but such is the price for "economic justice". The union bosses made out great, though. Now the unions arr largely controlled by socialists and Marxists. Andy Stern said it himself: What we're working toward is building a global organization. Because workers of the world unite? It's not just a slogan any more; it's a way we are going to have to do our work." So, is this your solution, rather than Entrepreneurship? A grand, unionized work collective? Working for the sake of working? Great for the human spirit and self-worth, isn't it? But maybe the "more enlightened humanity" will be happy with that---and with that Yugo or Smart Car.

I'm getting a headache, and none of this will soak in anyway, because you are so far above it, so see ya on the ramparts!