'SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT' THE EVIL FACING AMERICA Part One

Here are some links about SRI or Socially-Responsible Investing which is gaining popularity as the concepts of developing in economically, socially and environmentally responsible ways is being more valued by investors and by extention, the corporations they invest in.

Social Investment Forum : Introduction to Socially Responsible Investing
Ethical Funds : What is SRI

 

Then I guess you haven't read this yet. I know it's alot to ask but if you could spend the next few nights reading the articles on Joan's website she will explain it to you much better than I can.</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for pointing me out to that amusing article, poncho. I think one of this Joan person's articles is a enough to get the idea. I guess it would be funnier if it wasn't so sad that intelligent people like yourself actually believe this stuff. I guess when the human mind wants to believe something, it is very powerful and creative in finding ways to justify it.

I know you pity me for buying into the propoganda of "The Man" and I guess I'm just going to have to pay the consequences of ignoring conspiracy theorists and their warnings. Thanks for doing your part in trying to save me from the error of my ways. I know you mean well.

 

Poverty isn't being reduced so much as the wealth of formerly industrialized societies is being redistributed by the UN's and now WEFORUMS socialistic programs. The United States of America is being deindustrialized by the global money powers and other societies like China and India are being industrialized.

Good point, poncho. We're already seeing investment move out of some of the Pacific Rim countries (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand) into "lower-tier" countries (Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc.) where production and labor costs are lower. In theory, I guess, it would move across the face of the planet until there's no where else to go; in practice, changes in geopolitics, resource utilization, and productivity will always be in flux, providing an environment where "the grass is always greener" somewhere else. There will always be a mismatch between resource needs and supplies, and new technologies can seriously alter any "equilibrium" attained. Eventually, the high cost of oil will result in new alternatives and better efficiencies; those nations blessed with oil now will be without customers in fifteen or twenty years. (Now that's something to look forward to!)

The Kelo decision was absolutely revolutionary. It undermines the very basis of our society -- the presumption that one can enjoy the fruits of one's labor (property rights). I don't know any serious person who opposes the use of eminent domain where the common good has been established and the public use is open to all. But the idea that it can be used to redistribute property from one private owner to another is heresy. It is "legal" theft, and exposes one class of society (property owners) to the whims of another (government in collusion with non -property owners). It's bad enough that it can enrich a corporation at the expense of grandma, but think through the implications. If the majority were landless, what's to stop them from seizing the property of landowners, and redistributing it for the "common good", like in Zimbabwe?

I call it "theft" because the value of a property is, in theory, determined by what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller; in this case, only one party to the transaction is willing. What, then, is the "fair" market value? Whatever government determines it to be!

Let's go a step further, and hypothesize that the ownership of ABC Food Company ("ABC Foods") would "serve the public good" better if it was in the hands of the state. Since shares of stock represent ownership of the company, what's to stop the state from using a process similar to eminent domain to "ascertain" the fair market value of those shares (whatever the state says it is) and then seize those shares, along with the company assets, in exchange for "compensation"? Or transferring those shares to another private party?

How the SCOTUS read all of this into our Constitution, I don't know. But I see it paving the way for redistributing property in any way a social "visionary" sees fit. The cultural elite already think that they can manage our resources better than we can, and Kelo gives them the tools to do so.

Earth in the Balance, "We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization,...use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action...to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve...our ecological system." It was move 50% of the surface land in America into protected "ecosystems" There are 47 biospheres in the US occupying over 43.5 million acres of land.

This is an uncontestable threat that's been around since the 1970's, I think. No argument there. And it certainly is not the way I would define "biodiversity"; I don't know if I can define it. It's more of an attitude, to me -- trying to work in cooperation with nature, instead of controlling it. It manifests itself in an attempt to get multiple use of resources in agriculture, for example, without impairing the environment. I think the Gores would be satisfied to outsource agriculture overseas, depopulate all the farming communities (pushing us into the city -- or suicide, whichever "choice" we want), and "returning the land to nature." It completely ignores property rights, makes assumptions about ecology which are fallacious, and actually makes damage to the environment worse , I think, because high population densities are the source of major pollution.

My experience has been that smaller property owners make better stewards of the land than do larger property owners, and private property owners manage land better than public property owners. The former should be encouraged, and the latter discouraged. They also form the basis of thriving, rural communities that put less of a load on the environment, due to lower densities, and make it easier to decentralize government, countering the current tendency towards heirarchical consolidation. Local control is better than bureaucratic control from Washington, D.C.

Concentrating us in cities makes it easier for someone (or a group of "someones") to control us, because everything needed has to be imported into cities, or supplied by government. It feeds dependency upon government (look what happened in New Orleans!) I suppose there is a little "conspiracy thinking" in all of us, and stuffing us in cities fits the bill, for me. Doesn't mean it will happen, but the military trained me to think "worst-case scenario", and that's one of the worst I can think of!

It seems to me that we were originally protected from all of this because 1) Property owners were most of the voters; 2) The state was expected to balance power by appointing members to the Senate, rather than popular election; and 3) Federal power was limited. All of these conditions no longer exist.

I did promise to be as responsible as I could in this thread.

And you've kept your word, poncho. I'm glad to be able to exchange ramblings without having to duck for cover! Good for you! BTW, no further heart damage. Still can't do much due to spinal damage, but there's nothing they can do for that but medicate me.