You've created a strawman, attributed it to "they" and seem to be completely oblivious to the actual argument, and certainly nobody say there would be "no problems", they say it would constrain the government to only spend money that the country actually has right now.

When money is backed by something physical it prevents the government from spending more than it has by printing (or adding ten zeros) to its bank account whenever it wants, therefore devaluing the money that is already in existence.

You can't print gold so the government has to try a lot harder to spend money it doesn't actually have.

That's the real point of a hard money currency system, the fact that you hear gold (and silver) all the time is that it's just a convenient, historic store of wealth, if there was something more convenient the argument would be made for that.

Also you conveniently leave out the fact that it was while on the gold standard that the US, the UK and France became world powers, and once they went to fiat currencies became mired in debt and devaluation and lost their prosperity and declined.

It's not about money, it's about an inbuilt restriction to preventing politicians writing blank cheques until the country is broke, like most western countries are - as we see the beginnings of with Greece, Ireland, the UK and soon The US if it doesn't get its spending under control and cut the services it can't afford.

Finally you make it out like the current Fiat money system has proved itself superior, yet every single fiat currency in history has imploded at around 50 years due to unrelenting printing. You do realise it's only been implemented in the US for 38 years and that government spending has been increasing exponentially over that time compared to revenue? Do you think that can continue forever? Or do you think they'll get to a point and say, that's enough spending?

Why on earth is this being framed as the creation of religious people?

The Labor party are the secular, technocratic left wing party in Australia, the Liberals are the "religious conservatives". Yet it is Labor, not the Liberals (who had power for twelve years and never spoke about it) that are trying to ram this down the country's throat.

And to prove it the leaked blacklist had *anti* abortion websites banned. Hardly something that would make the religious people happy!

It's not religion that's the problem here, it's authoritarianism, which the current Labor party unfortunately (since I voted for them) have in spades.

Abbot was one of John Howards closest advisors while they held power and the closest we ever got to this kind of censorship was requiring ISPs to offer Net Nanny as a download to their clients.

The liberal party is far more diverse than Labor, the conservatives hold a tiny balance of power in the Liberal party at this moment but the liberal left-wing side of the party are always ready to take over the party leadership if the conservatives go too farm, and as we've seen it can happen in an instant.

The Australian Labor Party on the other hand is run ruthlessly by the union and party bosses, full stop end of story there is almost ability to make change from the bottom up . It has one of the most undemocratic party structures in the western world, it doesn't matter who's in parliament representing the Labor party they are there purely at the leisure of the party bosses. The Liberal party is also far from perfect but there is far more ability for members to dissent and change things from the bottom up.

And yes, I have at one time or another belonged to both parties.

We had twelve years of rule by the "ultra" conservatives until three years ago, of which time that "hyper religous nutbar" as you describe him (a boringly mainstream catholic in reality, do you describe the Prime Minister or NSW premier in the same manner given that they both hold the same position on most moral issues and attend church every Sunday as well?) was a senior minister and one of John Howards closest advisors. Under that "ultra" conservative government the closest we ever got to a mandatory filter was a law requiring ISPs to offer Net Nanny as a free download to their customers. Under the oh-so scary "ultra conservative" ideal that it's wrong for the government to force censorship on the electorate and that these decisions are best handled by parents in the privacy of their family homes (private homes - another scary "ultra conservative" ideal).

Then after just one year of labor rule we were assaulted by all manner of authoritarian legislation and yet somehow, bizarrely in your world it's the "ultra conservatives" who didn't ever implement such legislation even when they controlled two branches of government who "scare" you.

And I hate to tell you this, but if the "ultra conservatives" scare you, why not the Greens? They have *plenty* of their own "scary" authoritarian ideals.

You really are a product of the pop media aren't you?

You just described 1910.

You forgot the resurgent support for Eugenics, Euthenasia, radical socialism (or crony capitalism whatever you want to call it), glut in the labour market which really boils down to to much production not enough consuming. And many western countries with national debts that will be impossible to pay off.

An Asian nation rising on a collision course with the west over resources.

You ask what's next.

Look at what happened last time.

I do have a question for you Americans though.

When there's an large organisation that calls itself "The Race" whose stated goal is to repatriate some parts of the North American continent that currently belong to the USA and who enjoy wide and open support for their goal in their home country. And who seem to be making very real progress towards that goal (a US state constitution now co-written in their language??)

Doesn't that worry you people that maybe something is afoot?

Given that 90% of illegal immigrants in Arizona have "brown skin" (non racists call them Mexican Citizens) it would seem a stupid waste of time to go looking for illegal immigrants from Western Europe in any serious manner.

And to head you off, every country on the planet has specific immigration laws dealing with people from different countries - people coming from poor countries especially. So don't get all hoitytoity and start whimpering about RACIST AMERIKKKANS.

A. It's self destructive.
B. It's not in anyway out of the ordinary or special when compared to the rest of the world.

Just an outsiders perspective.

The Netherlands has had exactly the same law since 2005.

Of course western Europe is portrayed as some sort of utopia that all should aspire to, so when a country there forces its immigrants to carry compulsory ID cards that can be demanded by "The police, immigration and customs officials, tax officials, forest rangers, labour and environmental inspectors" Well that's just peachy and nice and like totally different because they're social democrats and have national healthcare and a vast and crippling welfare state. The US is as evil as the Nazis the very same Nazis that originated from Arizona...that the good people of Europe traveled half way round the world to wage war against in a most benevolent manner....or something.

It's really getting pretty weird around the western world these days. The double think and hypocrisy is getting sickening.

Hoping over a border illegally is slavery??

Good grief get some perspective.

There's not a country on earth that doesn't have tight immigration laws, not even the western European "utopias" that the American left seems to think every country should aspire to.

In France you can be arrested for even helping an illegal immigrant http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29899231/

In the Netherlands:
"Who can ask for ID?
The police, immigration and customs officials, tax officials, forest rangers, labour and environmental inspectors have the authority to ask to see your identification documents."

Looks an awful like the law that Arizona just passed. Where was the condemnation and international outcry against the Dutch?

Where is the faux outrage directed at Western Europes "Nazi" attitudes towards illegal immigrants?

Arizonas laws are on balance about the same as most western countries regarding immigrants. Most western countries won't let *half* the people that the US lets in. Germany won't even let you in unless you have a "purpose" for being there, just wanting to live there isn't even *nearly* enough reason for them to give you a visa. Unless you already hold a job there and are being sponsored (hmm sounds familiar) or have family there don't even apply.

Just like everywhere else on the planet.

The Mexican government condemns Arizona, when Mexicos laws state:

#A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)"

And they want to talk about "Nazi" attitudes towards illegal immigrants?

It's all nothing but the most absurd and disgusting two minutes of hate toward a traditionally conservative state for doing something that even the most left wing European states also do.

The double think is breathtaking in it's depth.

Can we get some perspective on this insanity?

They are two branches of the same tree, and in reality to the average person they're so close together that when implemented you can't tell the difference between the two when you're at the bottom looking up (as 99.999% of people here are).

I can't believe they ever branched into two separate "trees" in academic thought though. A necessary thing for the intelligensia to do after the war given that they so completely bought into the various flavours of Socialism in the 20's and 30's and didn't want to be hung drawn and quartered by the survivors after the war was over for ever supporting the ugliest version of it (they simply loved the idea of Eugenics, and members of the current administration still do).

The thing about it though is that the true believers in both ideologies share almost exactly the same ideals culminating in one final goal: Total support for an all powerful elite that uses the state apparatus to run every aspect of the plebs lives and move us around like we're cattle for their own ends. The ends always being more money, power and control for them and theirs.

Umm I hate to interrupt your long page of WRONG (and your little faux-outrage at the end) but tourists in Australia are most definitely NOT covered by Medicare - unless there is a reciprocal agreement with their home country.

From immi.gov.au:

Secondly regarding "the hospitals/doctors themselves are still private enterprises", the private hospitals here are PRIVATE and don't accept Medicare you require insurance or cash. The state run hospitals are run by...you guessed it, their respective states, employees of such are employees of the state government. Many work for both writing off their public system work as charity and recouping their uni fees / eight years of education in the private system. Is ignorance of your own healthcare system a must before posting long self righteous rants?

How embarrassing for you, in front of all these people as well.

But such is the level of discussion about National healthcare, page upon page written condemning the US and espousing the greatness of ones own countries system all of which is completely and utterly *wrong* and that's before you even reach the bit about the US's system.

Now I wonder if you'll be modded down now that you have been proven to be absolutely wrong, or if your spiel suits the political leanings of some around here enough to stay at +5 even though it's an absolute fantasy.

Jo-Ham, until this point I was going to write you off as a typical international victim of the echo chambers of Digg, Reddit, etc.

But after this: "Even Sarah Palin has to duck across the border to canada to afford medicine." you reveal yourself as an absolute partisan hack out to score worthless political points rather advance any sort of debate.

To those who don't know, in 1957 when Sarah Palin was a child living out in the middle of nowhere her father took her brother over the border once because they couldn't get out of their town by road or plane to the nearest Alaskan hospital after he burned himself. The train went over the border so they went with it.

It's *disgraceful* that you try and portray that in the way that you have here; as though recently she went over and that it was a matter of cost. You are disgustingly void of anything resembling intellectual honesty, this is the level of "discourse" in the political left at present and it SUCKS.

I hate to break it to you but the NHS is the worst of all the western public healthcare systems.

I'll take the Australian, German or French system any day over the abomination that is the NHS.

And I'm sure that you're aware that most states in the US (which of course are as populous and economically large as most European countries) have various forms of public insurance and public public care, so much so that even the "worst case" "victims" the administration keep bringing out to show how awful the current US healthcare system is have all been covered and receiving full treatment in their respective states public systems. Something the administration always conveniently neglect to mention.

The current rigmarole in the United States regarding healthcare is not about public / private, it's about the Federal Government moving into areas that it's does not have the authority to legislate. It's directly comparable to if (when) the European Union decides it's going to "take over" all of its member states discrete healthcare systems and run them from Brussels.

When that happens the EU *certainly* won't choose the UK model, and given how noisy and condescending you Brits have been about the Americans unwillingness to allow complete take over of healthcare by their Federal government don't expect any sympathy when the EU (yes they are talking about it http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/co_operation/mobility/patient_mobility_en.htm) comes to take over yours.

As soon as Obama was inaugurated the 24/7 American Patriot Dissent Machine renamed itself as the 24/7 American Obama Patriot Machine.

Any dissent which days before was front and center on every blog, newspaper, cable news outlet, protest headquarters, faculty meeting, etc effective immediately became vile racist treachery and that had to be denounced if uttered in relation to Obama.

Many moderate supporters of Obama such as myself were bitten by this turn around. Opinions and views that just weeks earlier had been "metro and cool" when Bush was president were suddenly cause for outrage, mocking and hyperbole if aired now that Obama was president. Where we were recently (according to our "betters") the educated and sophisticated "independents", we suddenly were finding ourselves as a group being denounced from the very same media for simply daring to air the same uncertainties that were so popular to talk about under the last administration.

And so a new generation of everyman has learned a sharp lesson about the "cool" metro left, a lesson last learned in the late 70's:

Don't trust them as far as you can throw them. For despite the front of being "tolerant" and "compassionate" and "inclusive", in reality they are absolutely ruthless. They make the likes of Karl Rove and the Freepers and Fox News look like tame puppies in comparison. One needs only look at the locked down, utterly bizarre world of the average University Campus to see a microsim of the outcome of the progressive lefts policies.

And this "moderate" who got many a +5 insightful on this site in the lead up to the election arguing for Obama, will *never* fall for the siren song of progressive left should it ever arise again.