Slashdot Mirror
Schmidt: Google Once Considered Issuing Currency
itwbennett writes "In his keynote speech at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said the company once 'had various proposals to have [its] own currency [it was] going to call Google Bucks.' The idea was to implement a 'peer-to-peer money' system, but it was squelched by legal issues."
Actual quote: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
back in 2004 at an exchange rate of about 85 USD per share. The dollar hasn't fared so well against it since then.
One would argue that they might not do a better job compared to the leaders that we currently vote in.
Here's one for you. Opt in citizenship to a nationless, territory free country. I wonder how many might not try to be a part of such a thing. I often wondered what would happen if a group started buying up adjoining land and reserved it for new members, and spread out and out as more members joined. Set up a civilised statute early on and let people come in as they wanted to.
It would be like colonising an already colonised land through market transactions and finance. I also think it would scare the bejesus out of the governments.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Yes, as opposed to "real" money, which is different in some meaningfull way, I assure you!
Awesome, two sets of laws to follow instead of one! Why just the other day I was thinking "Shit , you know what I dont have enough of in my life? Laws!"
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
It sounds like what you need is a good Home Owner's Association!
Given Google's veracity for hegemony, this type of news does not surprise me.
I'm guessing you meant voracity - but their habitual truthfulness in leadership may also be unsurprising, I don't know.
Sharia arbitration courts issue rulings that are legally binding on those who have agreed to be bound by them. So, for example, if you and I both wanted to, we could enter into a contract that stipulates that any disputes that arise over the terms of the contract would be settled by a Sharia arbitration court. The rulings would be legally enforceable, provided:
1) The only parties were those who had agreed by contract to be bound by the arbitration prior to the dispute arising.
2) The case is purely civil, not criminal.
3) The court doesn't violate public policy. (For example, if the court refused to allow women to testify, the ruling would likely be unenforceable.)
Orthodox Jews and several other groups have their own "courts" that arbitrate disputes among those who consent by contract to their jurisdiction. Generally, their rulings are enforceable in ordinary civil courts.