FIAT, "monopoly" INTEREST burdened currencies have long been a bane upon the world.

All currencies are fiat currencies as they happen to only be currencies by decree. Interest can be removed in such a way as to prevent anybody ever charging it again.

Free-market rules, and the "INVISIBLE" hand of God.

There is no such thing as a 'free-market'. They are always regulated in some fashion or another. In fact, it's the regulations surrounding the market that defines the market.

Is this about using honey as a currency?

This is an interesting idea, how do you propose it would work?

For some reason I can't vote ( @ipjobooth did you pay the bill?) - But I see a difference between barter and cooperation - I see us moving more towards reciprocal cooperation than strict 'money' based trade. -- so would vote "Other"

For some reason I can't vote

Yep, I'm having difficulty voting as well.

The Myth of the Barter Economy

But various anthropologists have pointed out that this barter economy has never been witnessed as researchers have traveled to undeveloped parts of the globe. “No example of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence from it of money,” wrote the Cambridge anthropology professor Caroline Humphrey in a 1985 paper. “All available ethnography suggests that there never has been such a thing.”

Humphrey isn’t alone. Other academics, including the French sociologist Marcel Mauss, and the Cambridge political economist Geoffrey Ingham have long espoused similar arguments.

When barter has appeared, it wasn’t as part of a purely barter economy, and money didn’t emerge from it—rather, it emerged from money. After Rome fell, for instance, Europeans used barter as a substitute for the Roman currency people had gotten used to. “In most of the cases we know about, [barter] takes place between people who are familiar with the use of money, but for one reason or another, don’t have a lot of it around,” explains David Graeber, an anthropology professor at the London School of Economics.

So if barter never existed, what did? Anthropologists describe a wide variety of methods of exchange—none of which are of the “two-cows-for-10-bushels-of-wheat” variety.

We do have problems with money and those problems go back for all of recorded history but it's difficult to argue that we should go back to barter when barter has never been used as a means of exchange. I thoroughly recommend reading David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 years.

Indications are that we evolved communally and in cooperation with each other rather than in the modern paradigm of competition with each other. It's this competition that seems to be causing all the problems:

All such departures from a broadly egalitarian society, economy and culture are quintessentially radical if only because for the vast stretch of human existence, egalitarianism and equality were not only the norm but also the active and deliberate goal of social organisation.