Topic: America's Choice - Liberty or Sustainable Development (Read 3570 times)

You are applying some perceived ideological prejudice you have upon me and not listening to the words I am speaking, but instead being refractory. My very point from the beginning is that committing to education, and facts is what will dismantle the problem, because sustainable systems ARE BETTER and more efficient. Bottom line, the current system is BOUND to fail, and can not continue in a physical sense. Political ideology has nothing to do with it.

There is nothing obfuscating or indirect about my posts. One needs to only look at humanity and observe. Of course it helps if you're willing to commit yourself to actually learn and research facts, rather than insist that some particular political ideology will magically make the nature of greed disappear.

It is more important to understand reality, than semantics. Your narrow view of reality is in fact SUPPORTING the very thing you think you are fighting. There have been many publicly documented plans for decades to use green initiatives and "sustainable development" as a mechanism for implementing world government, and more importantly international global taxes. Look into what the IMF and The World bank are doing lately?

You are fighting for an illusion, and you are the vehicle of delivery of this plan running around spouting lots of indirect and obfuscating rhetoric to which you provide no substance, directly serving these corrupt cartels you claim to have distaste for. These are not stupid people. They have a method to sell to everyone, anything they want. An abuse for every belief system. I suggest you type less and read more.

Examples of entities engaging in implementing sustainable development is not evidence of a lack of entities developing super efficient methods to exploit dwindling resources, nor evidence of the lack of entities taking advantage of harvesting the lowest hanging fruit. It's really important to understand that.

Your first statement is complete horse shit. Put the word "sustainable" into YouTube and see how many people are taking action thru education and implementing local sustainable development BECAUSE IT WORKS not because some jackboot forced them to!

Sustainable development requires regulation. So you're correct, one or the other, but not both. A perfectly free market will not yield a steady state economy. What it will yield is a very efficient exploitation of the lowest hanging fruit. Just look at both history and in the contemporary economy for numerous examples.

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

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.

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.

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

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


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.


Freedom is a concept independent of sustainability.


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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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. 

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?