How bad would it be to see America's sovereignty eroded?

[martinx07]

There is talk of the G20, IMF, and international corporations gathering a "special" meeting to fix America's economy. By fix, I mean to control the capital, controlling the markets, and of course setting the value and standards for the Dollar. How dangerous would it be to see America's economy, or nation dictated by corporate bankers, or int'l corporations? Thanks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7909008.stm

[Forty 7]

We haven't much left to preserve...

How has it worked out so far? (rhetorical Q...)

Globalization is the problem... so... EXTREME globalization is the solution? Wait.... What???

Whose idea was this?

:/ "hmmmmmm"

[Ed J]

After eight years of an incompetent in the white house any assistance will be welcomed.

[Thela Hun Ginjeet]

You're seeing it erode slowly already.

[maui_madman]

There is no problem as long as you don't mind giving up your Constitutional protections in exchange for the covenants of the United Nations.

Lets compare the two:
If our task is to define rights as we think they should be in a free society,we must choose between these two concepts. Individualists choose the concept that rights come from the people and governments are the servants. Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from governments and people are the servants. Individualists are nervous about that assumption because, if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty. The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which says:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men….

Nothing could be clearer than that. The dictionary tells us that inalienable (spelled
differently in colonial times) means “not to be transferred to another.” The assumption is that rights are the innate possession of the people. The purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them. By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says:
"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law."
I repeat: If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.” In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it.
Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms", and so forth – not except as determined by law, but no law.
The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes.

[DAR]

Very bad. They want the IMF to have sanction ability over our national economy.

Not acceptable.

[Virtual Evie]

I don't suppose anyone will be calling "ally, ally, income free".