America's Choice - Liberty or Sustainable Development

[TECSHARE]

The choice is a false choice. It is a classic logical fallacy. Sustainable development and liberty do not have to be exclusive. The problem is the consumption patterns and planned obsolescence. The current system rewards wastefulness. Don't destroy liberty to get sustainability, build a BETTER more sustainable system and people will use it because it works! As people in America get more and more broke and as our currency devalues people will be BEGGING for sustainable alternatives because the grid system will no longer be affordable. The key is education, not removal of rights.

[1713959356]

1713959356

[1713959356]

1713959356

[1713959356]

1713959356

[benjamindees]

You are a Marxist plain and simple. This is not an ad-hominem attack but my opinion from reading much of your litany. We get it. You dont want to work and have everything provided for you paid for by people who do work. We get it ... and you think the overthrow of nation states by lies, manipulation, propaganda, indoctrination and global governance would give that to you if it ever were to ocurr, but it would be the end of you, son. The end of us all. You and those like you are our mortal enemy, and we would destroy you and those like you if ever given the opportunity if you dont change your ways. You have been manipulated and indoctrinated. If not, then you are just plain evil that needs to be destroyed.

Just to nitpick, Hawker is not a Marxist.  He is a right-wing welfare-queen aka "soldier".

[FirstAscent]

I don't agree with the idea of private land ownership.

Consider that desiring private land ownership, desiring zero regulations, and desiring no taxes are wants, i.e. desires. Basing decisions on desires, and then working backwards to show that those desires are justified is just that, backwards.

A forward analysis is necessary instead.

Steelhouse, as an aside, you should read the book Rewilding North America, by Dave Foreman.

[benjamindees]

Renting land... for free

Um, what?

[FirstAscent]

Sustainable development and liberty do not have to be exclusive. The problem is the consumption patterns and planned obsolescence. The current system rewards wastefulness.

I agree with what you're saying here. But it's necessary to not presume that the desires of libertarians are compatible with conservation, efficiency and preservation.

[steelhouse]

Steelhouse, as an aside, you should read the book Rewilding North America, by Dave Foreman.

Everyone should read Progress and Poverty by Henry George.

[FirstAscent]

Steelhouse, as an aside, you should read the book Rewilding North America, by Dave Foreman.

Everyone should read Progress and Poverty by Henry George.

Here's a question (actually two questions) for you:

What was the limiting factor of the annual global fish haul in 1800?

What is the limiting factor of the annual global fish haul today?

[steelhouse]

Renting land... for free

Um, what?

You should be able to get a land lease for free in rural areas.  In cities you should pay a tax based on size of lot, not value of property. 

[Hawker]

Renting land... for free

Um, what?

You should be able to get a land lease for free in rural areas.  In cities you should pay a tax based on size of lot, not value of property. 

Won't the owners of the land object to that?  You will compel them to give their land for free to others and to pay property taxes.  That sounds like expropriation to me.

[steelhouse]

Won't the owners of the land object to that?  You will compel them to give their land for free to others and to pay property taxes.  That sounds like expropriation to me.

Nobody should own land except government.  The government would tax the land at the fair rental value of existing landowners. 

[benjamindees]

You should be able to get a land lease for free in rural areas.  In cities you should pay a tax based on size of lot, not value of property.  

Okay, so "theoretically".  The problem is that this doesn't work in theory.  Let's say the government or whoever leases you some rural land for free.  Even though most rural land is pretty cheap, it still has value.  And it's not too difficult for you to destroy much of that value, by burning down all the vegetation or dumping trash or tilling it up and ruining the topsoil.  Furthermore, without ownership there is zero incentive to make improvements.  It's not that other systems are perfect, of course.  But under your system, by definition, the land loses value and everyone is worse off except for the moocher who gets a free land lease of course.  Are you not in the least bit familiar with the communal farming failures of the Soviet Union and Mao's China?  Hell, the American dust bowl even?

[FirstAscent]

Renting land... for free

Um, what?

You should be able to get a land lease for free in rural areas.  In cities you should pay a tax based on size of lot, not value of property. 

Neither this nor unregulated private land ownership are solutions for sustainability.

[benjamindees]

Government laws are necessary on land to protect the native flora and fauna due to human overpopulation.  The Tule Elk of California, were saved by a rich private landowner because he puts rules on his land before government.

Does the irony of this statement completely elude you?  Private ownership isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is the problem.  And overpopulation is caused by incompetent governments that encourage population growth by forcibly re-distributing property to the irresponsible.

[steelhouse]

Here's a question (actually two questions) for you:

What was the limiting factor of the annual global fish haul in 1800?

What is the limiting factor of the annual global fish haul today?

In 1800 it was the number of boats, and today it is the number of fish farms.

Malthus made a big mistake and George stated it clearly, more people more chickens.  Agriculture also increases geometrically.

But, eventually you will hit the end of land with agriculture and genetically modified foods.  Then that is the limit of population, when every blade of grass is used for food production.

[TECSHARE]

Sustainable development and liberty do not have to be exclusive. The problem is the consumption patterns and planned obsolescence. The current system rewards wastefulness.

I agree with what you're saying here. But it's necessary to not presume that the desires of libertarians are compatible with conservation, efficiency and preservation.

I think it is very necessary to presume that they are aligned if properly implemented. If introduced properly large scale sustainability wins every time. The better system ALWAYS wins.  It is a more profitable and efficient solution - the goal of every libertarian along with preserving individual freedom. The problem is a small group control a cluster of industrial monopolies and are suppressing TONS of efficient, inexpensive, sustainable technologies legally and illegally. By saying it is necessary to not presume, you are also saying by default you should presume they are exclusive. My exact point is they are not exclusive. Education of the masses is key.

The scarcity problem is an ILLUSION created by the SLASH AND BURN planned obsolescence economy. An OBSOLETE dying system. Proper technology put to use could solve ALL of these problems. Don't destroy the freedom of the individual destroy the machine that destroys the most resources (ie monopolies & cartels). This is a classical cognitive dissonance pattern designed to get you to agree to give up your rights in a time of artificially enhanced chaos.

 Also I feel I must state here that I don't think corporations should have all the same protections as "a man on the land" or a living being (a "person" is a legal fiction by definition).  The law needs more common law enforcement and less maritime contract law where the real theft resources from nature occurs. As an American with a birth certificate I am chattel property of the federal reserve as a bond on the federal debt. Look it up. This is all contract law, not common law as the country used to be more reliant upon. The key is resurgence and support of common law, especially at local, county, and state level.

To summarize don't worry about tearing down the current system - it is destroying itself. Worry about building the better system to displace it.

[FirstAscent]

Sustainable development and liberty do not have to be exclusive. The problem is the consumption patterns and planned obsolescence. The current system rewards wastefulness.

I agree with what you're saying here. But it's necessary to not presume that the desires of libertarians are compatible with conservation, efficiency and preservation.

I think it is very necessary to presume that they are aligned if properly implemented.

I have yet to see a proper working implementation. I'm open to suggestions though.

If introduced properly large scale sustainability wins every time. The better system ALWAYS wins.

The problem is when everyone deploys their own solution with regard to what they do with their own land. Mostly, I see unregulated private land ownership resulting in decimation.

It is a more profitable and efficient solution - the goal of every libertarian along with preserving individual freedom.

Freedom is a concept independent of sustainability.

The scarcity problem is an ILLUSION created by the SLASH AND BURN planned obsolescence economy. An OBSOLETE dying system. Proper technology put to use could solve ALL of these problems. Don't destroy the freedom of the individual destroy the machine that destroys the most resources (ie monopolies & cartels). This is a classical cognitive dissonance pattern designed to get you to agree to give up your rights in a time of artificially enhanced chaos.

I am in agreement that our economy encourages waste. I am in disagreement that scarcity is an illusion.

[benjamindees]

Here's a question (actually two questions) for you:

What was the limiting factor of the annual global fish haul in 1800?

What is the limiting factor of the annual global fish haul today?

In 1800 it was the number of boats, and today it is the number of fish farms.

Malthus made a big mistake and George stated it clearly, more people more chickens.  Agriculture also increases geometrically.

But, eventually you will hit the end of land with agriculture and genetically modified foods.  Then that is the limit of population, when every blade of grass is used for food production.

No it won't.  The limiting factor will be some obscure micronutrient like Flerovium that you didn't even know existed.  And by the time you learn about it, it will be too late.  There are already issues with the nutritional content (or lack thereof) of GM foods.  It doesn't matter how big or how cheap your grapefruits are if they don't provide the same nutrition as the organic version.  You will end up obese and unhealthy trying to eat enough to be satiated.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9181#comment-892265

[FirstAscent]

Here's a question (actually two questions) for you:

What was the limiting factor of the annual global fish haul in 1800?

What is the limiting factor of the annual global fish haul today?

In 1800 it was the number of boats, and today it is the number of fish farms.

Malthus made a big mistake and George stated it clearly, more people more chickens.  Agriculture also increases geometrically.

But, eventually you will hit the end of land with agriculture and genetically modified foods.  Then that is the limit of population, when every blade of grass is used for food production.

No it won't.  The limiting factor will be some obscure micronutrient like Flerovium that you didn't even know existed. 

There already is a limiting factor with regard to the global annual fish haul, and it serves as an accurate barometer for natural capital in general. The limiting factor is the number of fish.

[check_status]

Part 1: [Google Video][YouTube]
Part 2: [Google Video][YouTube]
Part 3: [Google Video][YouTube]

I thought Alex Jones was scary until I watched these videos. He was only scratching the surface of the true depth of the crime. The Beast is already active and his law is about to come into effect. Since the Constitution was based upon principles in the Bible it appears the first thing to be attacked by the UN was the Constitution. "A Declaration of world Citizenship", WTF.
We are in some deep doodoo.

[FreeMoney]

Give me liberty or give me.... sustainable development!