Presumably, Andrea, were the US to lay down its arms, total disarmament, the demand for weapons would dry up, disappear, and emerge as a demand for plowshares.

My point was that in order for it to rise to the level of a moral move, only the US, the strongest bearer of arms on the planet today, can make it.

Disarmament any other place, although commendable, would be described as economic necessity, cowardly in the face of greater foes, politically appropriate, anything but as a moral act.

There could be moral citizenry demanding it of their government, but so far as the Universe is concerned, it must be the strongest at warfare to stop warfare, that is, to commit a truly moral act by disarming.

We lost our chance, I believe, right after the WWII, when we were still a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. Today we have become a nation of, by, and for corporations. We are close to the Facism of Italy who joined Germany in the war.

The military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about has assumed control, and to it, morality is simply a word in the dictionary.

So long as fear prevents us from disarming, all the way from fear of losing markets to fear of losing other people's natural resources to fear of China, Iran, or the Taliban, we will never see morality as a reason for doing anything.

It's the moral thing to do, to disarm, the Chinese might say of their government, the Russians might say it of their government, but it is only we who are citizens of the US who can say it meaningfully, for ours is the only nation that can commit the moral act. And its afraid to.

With respect to a world without money, any system that took its place would, I think, eventually be simplified by going back to money.

But I share your concerns in every way.