What is wrong with the New World Order. The Global Government Debate Thread

[russell jones]

You're calling a guy who works for a major intelligence agency (non governmental) a faggot?

Dude, I don't agree with a lot of what Christo thinks politically, but I wouldn't call him a faggot.

 

Christo eats, breathes, and shits more information in one month than most see in one year.

 

I'd go more with the regional insults like "kangaroo bum licker" or "wallaby taster" or even the classic, but not used too much, "dingo fucker". Never "faggot", though.

 

I reserve "faggot" for Sean Hannity, exclusively. For instance, "Did you see that faggot Sean Hannity? What the fuck is that faggots problem?"

 

 

ohhhh this made my morning. Hi-fucking-larious.

[angelofdeath]

I'm sorry but I see your position here a little too optimistic. Not all economics is based on long term and sustainable gain. Once off riches based on exploitation (especially if you use that profit elsewhere to compound profit) is also a completely rational investment behaviour. Secondly, not all business interests have share holders and many that do still don't always act in a way that support share holder interests. If you can make a cool $10m in a once of deal, what do you care if the land is not useless for further industry? you're set for life, the others should have been smarter and got there before you.

 

i think you are trying to confuse my position of a group of individuals who want to purchase lands for stewardship... (i.e. all the greenies in the US) with a for profit business that seeks to make a profit. the point i was making is that in a free society all one has to do is pool your resources with like minded people. we are talking the michael moores and the george soro's who want to preserve the land as they see fit. there is no reason why these people shouldnt be able to pool their resources and privately protect these assets. their main goal is to preserve the land. selective timber harvesting is a proper and necessary function of this land stewardship. the point was that even a small thing such as bringing in timber money would help pay the yearly stewardship fees.

and since the board of directors is made up of greenies... do you really think they would clear cut the rocky mountains? in whose interest is it to clear cut? if they do clear cut the forest, they will be LOSING money as it is not sustainable over time. there would be little future profit.

 

Secondly you base your idea of sustainability on the idea that the investors require the area that is being destroyed for continued profit making. THat is not the case in any number of industries. Simple example; PAint factory does not use the downstream water for any commercial reason and it is much more economically rational for them to dump wastage in the river than dispose of it at a chemical waste plant.

 

you are confusing an issue here.

if you saying that in a free market people are free to pollute. you are confusing the status quo with a free market based on property rights. the free market is supposed to protect property rights. which is why i say we have corporate fascism driving by ideological socialism in the US. they have given companies the right to pollute to a certain extent and they limit their liability. this is nonsense.

you are assuming the cost of pollution is 0. this is the cost of pollution in a society without property rights, the very basis of the idea of govt ownership of land to preserve it. if we had private property rights and enforced liability laws, the cost of dumping would not be 0 if the property owner valued his property (the river). say we had a group of property owners who owned the water rights to a river. they are called the 'xyz stream llc.' the paint polluter's cost of dumping paint into the stream is no longer 0 as in the scenario you describe. he would have to pay these people for damages. end of problem.

 

you are confusing the status quo of not enforcing property rights with that of the free market which enforces both liability and property rights.

 

 

This dumping then kills off the local fishing industry, agricultural base, etc. etc. Very simplistic example but illustrates the idea that A) good business practice does not always mandate sustainability of the surrounding environment, and B) it is easy to see that rational economic decision making may lead one to make decisions that damage the environment in a way that will harm other industries.

 

which is why fishing rights should be privatized.

you cannot properly assess damages without property rights.

 

Whilst I agree that the govt generally sucks at protecting the environment I still cannot see any argument that suggests that a pure free market would be any better. I actually think it would be worse being that a lot of environmentally sound practices are more expensive than the irresponsible option.

 

step one is to enforce liability suits and laws against polluters and stop protecting them.

this is one of the things the green movement leaves out. their perspective is generally so backwards that they dont even push for this sensible solution of sound liability laws which provide businesses with powerful incentives to avoid damaging others property and in turn the environment. liability laws are an important part of any capitalist economy. they hold persons or groups accountable for harming others... and in turn for dumping refuse or polluting the air or water.

 

the second thing the green movement discounts is the property ownership incentive. it is basic economic truth that private property provides the right incentives for conservation. when people own their own home, lake, forest, whatever they tend to take better care of it. pride of ownership is one factor. greedy self interest is another factor. the better they take care of it, the more its worth. when the govt owns property there is no incentive to care for it. still instead of fighting for private property rights which could solve all these problems, the environmentalists advocate more government ownership of resources which only leads for further degradation, splitting up of communities through eminent domain and the power of the govt when they take lands for national forests, and other unintended consequences. the examples are all around us.

the national forest that borders my families pristine mountain farm is night and day difference in quality than the farm its self. the govt land is trashed. the govt roads are never plowed when it snows as fast as private lots, road ways and streets. during the last winter it was 1 week from when the super market lots were clear to when the govt roads going to them were clear. the post office is broke. amtrak is broke. govt project houses one block away from privately owned houses... the public housing is totally trashed. the private houses are nice. its night and day difference.

 

the end point being... no system is perfect. i'd obviously choose liberty over a coerced socialist style centrally planned system. private property rights and freedom are a much better system. the main point being that if a property owner poorly stewards his property, he loses. if a govt poorly stewards its land, who loses? does obama loose? does the national park service lose? no. they stay where they are. when the govt doesnt properly deal with hurricane katrina does fema go bankrupt? no, they get more funding. the incentives are ass backwards.

 

one other point... people make the assumption that ALL clear cutting is bad. if it wasnt for clear cutting there wouldnt be any farms east of the appalachians. if we take the ideology to its logical conclusion... the greenies want an environment with no people. they preach about population problems, etc etc. that is the end game. the only real way to save the planet is to kill everyone and then, to quote one of the top lefty scientist types..'things begin to look up.' (this was his line after he suggested we just send all the people on earth to mars)

so any way you look at it its a trade off.

 

 

sorry i missed your red quoted text... the quote button didnt copy that to this post.

i'll get it later when i have time

 

also.. i know we have all talked about this before.. so if people want to get on with the conspiracy talk... dont let these tangents stop you

[christo-f]

i think you are trying to confuse my position of a group of individuals who want to purchase lands for stewardship... (i.e. all the greenies in the US) with a for profit business that seeks to make a profit. the point i was making is that in a free society all one has to do is pool your resources with like minded people. we are talking the michael moores and the george soro's who want to preserve the land as they see fit. there is no reason why these people shouldnt be able to pool their resources and privately protect these assets.

 

Well first off these people have to have the money to do so, or do they parachute in and claim it in the model you were discussing before? Secondly, they will have to outbid those who want to use the places for non-environmental uses. I'm not convinced that all the people who support national parks/environmental conservation have the money to do this. Who could afford the Great Barrier reef, the Rocky Mountains, etc? How do you put a price on it and who are you paying the fee for ownership to? And if the conservationists cannot outbid commercial interests who don't have conservation in mind, where do we stand then?

 

I'd also suggest reconsidering the use of the term "greenies". I'm sure as hell no greenie and neither are any of my friends however we all use national parks for mountain bike riding, taking our kids out for fishing and picnics and want them to be preserved in a good state. Using that term is very taboidesque and doesn't indicate a great deal of objectivity.

 

 

 

you are confusing an issue here.

if you saying that in a free market people are free to pollute. you are confusing the status quo with a free market based on property rights. the free market is supposed to protect property rights. which is why i say we have corporate fascism driving by ideological socialism in the US. they have given companies the right to pollute to a certain extent and they limit their liability. this is nonsense. Agreed.

you are assuming the cost of pollution is 0. No, I'm assuming anything. I'm putting a case forward where the the cost of polluting is less than the cost of not polluting. this is the cost of pollution in a society without property rights, the very basis of the idea of govt ownership of land to preserve it. if we had private property rights and enforced liability laws, the cost of dumping would not be 0 if the property owner valued his property (the river). say we had a group of property owners who owned the water rights to a river. they are called the 'xyz stream llc.' the paint polluter's cost of dumping paint into the stream is no longer 0 as in the scenario you describe. he would have to pay these people for damages. end of problem.

 

you are confusing the status quo of not enforcing property rights with that of the free market which enforces both liability and property rights.

 

OK, another scenario; nobody owns the river because it's too far away from seafood markets and it's salt water and useless for irrigation. Water flows out in to the ocean, no specific individual interest is harmed. How do you make the polluter stop dumping where no one owns property? Scenario two; privately owned nuclear power plant, takes toxic waste out in to the middle of the desert (making a relatively safe assumption that no one is going to own the property in the desert as it's not overly useful). Toxic waste leaks in to air and and water tables making future resources useless (this could also be used for the paint factory dumping waste in to a river that no one has bought the rights for yet. It gets destroyed for future use but is not yet an impingement on anyone's property). Third scenario, rubber factory pumps out horrid smoke in to the air and the place looks like Beijing. Do people have to buy airspace around their house? Are factories only liable for air pollution that goes over private property and not common areas like roads and so on?

 

 

 

 

which is why fishing rights should be privatized.

you cannot properly assess damages without property rights.

 

Is the state allowed to buy land in your model?

 

 

 

step one is to enforce liability suits and laws against polluters and stop protecting them.

this is one of the things the green movement leaves out. their perspective is generally so backwards that they dont even push for this sensible solution of sound liability laws which provide businesses with powerful incentives to avoid damaging others property and in turn the environment. liability laws are an important part of any capitalist economy. they hold persons or groups accountable for harming others... and in turn for dumping refuse or polluting the air or water.

 

the second thing the green movement discounts is the property ownership incentive. it is basic economic truth that private property provides the right incentives for conservation. when people own their own home, lake, forest, whatever they tend to take better care of it. pride of ownership is one factor. greedy self interest is another factor. the better they take care of it, the more its worth. Not true at all. Kakadu is a part of northern Australia (world heritage, amazing place, aboriginal art, biodiversity, bla blah blah) however it also has a large amount of uranium and iron ore deposits. The basic economic truth here would be to buy up the land, open cut mine it and dump the waste in to the lakes and billabongs, totally destroying the natural landscape and once the resources have been extracted the place is useless as it has no money making potential or "natural attractions" anymore. You might say that it is up to the conservationists to buy it and protect it but I'd suggest that it is impossible for interests such as that to outbid Rio Tinto, BHP, Ivanhoe, Minmetals, etc. That's just one easy example off the top of the head. when the govt owns property there is no incentive to care for it. Yes there is, it's called democracy and getting voted out of government. If conservationist interests can run a successful campaign they can influence govt policy for (what they see as) best practice. still instead of fighting for private property rights which could solve all these problems, the environmentalists advocate more government ownership of resources which only leads for further degradation, splitting up of communities through eminent domain and the power of the govt when they take lands for national forests, and other unintended consequences.

 

I also think your idea of a basic economic truth of conservationist incentives misses two things. First it ignores short term payoffs over mid-long term gains, which can make perfect economic sense in many instances, using mining or property development as and example. Second it also assumes that all economic actors are rational. I would argue that this is not the case.

 

 

 

 

sorry i missed your red quoted text... the quote button didnt copy that to this post.

i'll get it later when i have time

 

Yeah, no rush.

[angelofdeath]

Well first off these people have to have the money to do so, or do they parachute in and claim it in the model you were discussing before?

 

as previously stated...

if al gore, george soro's, warren buffett, michael moore, and a couple million limosine liberals who live in 5000 sq foot houses and drive bmw's would pool their resources they surely could buy whatever lands they want. whether it be millions of acres of private forest or how many acres of govt owned forest. the parachuting example would work only for property that is in a state of non ownership. which in my view state owned land does qualify for, but i dont want to argue this point. for simplicities sake.

the point being... if the people who wanted to protect mountains, mosquito infested swamps, etc... they should put their money where there mouths are, purchase 'environmentally sensitive' land, just like any nature conservancy does.

for instance, i like to shoot. but you dont see me lobbying government to institute 'national shooting ranges' for all to enjoy and to pay for it with tax payer money 'liberated' from the liberal anti gunners down the street. why should the bunny huggers be afforded the luxury of having their outdoor activities subsidized? the reason why the greens dont want to do this is because they would then have to put their OWN money, where there mouths are giving up vacations and cruises and mercedes benz's in exchange for part ownership of some desolate canyon or swamp. given that they can buy and save everything they would have to choose between their prime down town real estate with a 'view' or save the endangered maggots that inhabit some obscure stretch of river. it fits right in with their world view. give to the poor by taking other peoples money. give everyone health insurance while using other peoples money. create national forests by using other peoples money.

 

we must prioritize.

but they dont want to prioritize with their own bank accounts. they want to use the govt which uses others peoples money to do their good deeds.

in the end they havent even attempted to try to purchase lands like this for preservation... yet gun owners in nearly every non urban county in american all pool their resources together to preserve land to shoot on and to hunt.

short of shows a divide between doers and talkers dont ya think? and hunters are much better stewards of the environment than any park ranger or bmw bolshevik sipping cocktails on their urban roof top loft frothing at the mouth talking about which policy is better than the current one in order to 'do something' about the environment.

 

 

No, I'm assuming anything. I'm putting a case forward where the the cost of polluting is less than the cost of not polluting.

 

ok then, but in your case the cost of pollution is 0 because no one owns the property. if we had liability laws in place and a court system that enforced them the cost to the paint manufacturer dumping waste into a river owned by someone else, therefore violating the river owners rights and destroying the water rights of others, the costs are so high they would not do it and would have to dispose of it properly. even so... not looking at the costs... the river owner would file an injunction and atleast get the polluter to stop and compensate for damages. (had to throw this in just to show that its not all about 'cost' its about violation of rights)

 

OK, another scenario; nobody owns the river because it's too far away from seafood markets and it's salt water and useless for irrigation. Water flows out in to the ocean, no specific individual interest is harmed. How do you make the polluter stop dumping where no one owns property?

 

how about i phrase it another way for you?

say the city of pittsburg (super industrial city) was composed solely of factories and there were no property owners within 10 miles of the city. the air pollution and water pollution outside the city limits reached 5 miles out. no one owned the property in between. this would then mean the first one to homestead the property, the polluter, would own it. its their baby. it would function as a dump. a land fill. they have to deal with any liability that comes from waste seeping off of this property. if they pollute the air which in turn pollutes others property they should be liable. if we can use forensics to prosecute murder, surely they can use forensics to prosecute environmental crimes.

another example is an airport. its noisy.

after the airport is built... people build houses next to it and say...'shut the hell up over there its noisy!'

go to court... court should rule that the air port was there first and essentially homesteaded the noise rights over that area.

 

Scenario two; privately owned nuclear power plant, takes toxic waste out in to the middle of the desert (making a relatively safe assumption that no one is going to own the property in the desert as it's not overly useful). Toxic waste leaks in to air and and water tables making future resources useless (this could also be used for the paint factory dumping waste in to a river that no one has bought the rights for yet. It gets destroyed for future use but is not yet an impingement on anyone's property).

 

all landowners, people, etc, affected by said waste file suit against the company and hold them accountable. company goes broke.

PS. on this topic... the US military not to long ago dumped its 400 million tons (or some such obscene number) of toxic waste from the rocky mountain arsenal 'somewhere out in the desert'

 

Third scenario, rubber factory pumps out horrid smoke in to the air and the place looks like Beijing. Do people have to buy airspace around their house? Are factories only liable for air pollution that goes over private property and not common areas like roads and so on?

 

if you want to read more about libertarian property rights theory in the air and water, etc, check this out:

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/air-pollution.html

 

Is the state allowed to buy land in your model?

 

only in a limited capacity.

i believe essentially in a (i hate to say it because im not a huge fan of her) ayn randian type of state/society. one where govt exists only to protect property rights. most notably which includes a domestic police force to protect against bad guys, a military to protect against foreign bad guys and a court system to settle disputes, etc. so in a strict sense i believe the state can own the buildings and property it needs to do its functions. and this should be set up largely on a consenting tax basis with an option to not partake in or fund these activities if you do not want them. (leave the free rider problem out for expediencies sake, at the moment)

however owning the majority of land west of the mississippi river is not what i have in mind. the basis being... if a state seizes wealth by force... (a robber steals money and then buys a house) and then buys a forest with the money.... is this legitimate? does the robber really own the house as well? or is the rightful owner the owner of the money that had his property taken from him?

 

Not true at all. Kakadu is a part of northern Australia (world heritage, amazing place, aboriginal art, biodiversity, bla blah blah) however it also has a large amount of uranium and iron ore deposits. The basic economic truth here would be to buy up the land, open cut mine it and dump the waste in to the lakes and billabongs, totally destroying the natural landscape and once the resources have been extracted the place is useless as it has no money making potential or "natural attractions" anymore. You might say that it is up to the conservationists to buy it and protect it but I'd suggest that it is impossible for interests such as that to outbid Rio Tinto, BHP, Ivanhoe, Minmetals, etc. That's just one easy example off the top of the head.

 

i'll remind you that one cannot strip mine anything if the owner refuses to sell to the strip miners. which is why if the nature conservancy of warren buffett/berkshire hathaway/soro's/al gore owns the land and refuses to sell, nothing can be done. what is most economical to do with the land matters not at all in this case. its the same as the one little row house on the city block that is falling down because they refused to sell to the big sky scraper company that encompasses the rest of the block. they didnt have this in the soviet union.

in fact i am closely involved in a similar situation that you are describing. my great grandfather died 10 years ago leaving his property to his 4 kids. long story short, it is the last large tract of acreage in the area that is pretty suburban at this point. him and 3 other property owners all adjoining are the last hold outs. the kids who own the property just signed a contract to sell the land to a developer along with 2 of the other property owners. all of these same people have routinely complained that 'everything is being developed!' their entire lives. yet they all had it within their capacity to not sell the land and there fore preserve it. i know if i personally owned the land, they could have this last remaining acreage when they took it from my cold dead hands.

 

and of course the second problem of pollution would be dealt with by private ownership of the water ways and other property and proper application of liability law.

 

Yes there is, it's called democracy and getting voted out of government. If conservationist interests can run a successful campaign they can influence govt policy for (what they see as) best practice.

 

which begs the question of, how large do we want the state?

big enough to give us everything we want, that also means it can take everything we have?

i'd argue that govt environmental policy shouldnt even exist. it is not a proper function of government.

to be sure in a free society, there will be land use that you dont agree with. just like there is social activities that people do that you dont agree with. but do you have a right to interfere with their business? i'd submit that if no ones rights are violated in the process of one using their property all is hunky dory.

environmental policy in his country started out with basic noble goals. preserve the bald eagle. preserve the grand canyon. now it means that if you see an owl on your property the govt can nationalize your farm. it means you cant build a house because you might disturb the local snail darter population. it means you cant have a home saw mill on your farm because a farm is for 'farming.' it means when they build their rattlesnake sanctuaries next to farming communities they have snakes pouring into farms, biting animals and children and offsetting the natural ecological order. when they reintroduce predators into wild areas bordering farm country, they make it illegal to protect your herds. if you shoot the predators you go to jail. doesnt matter how many chickens or lambs they kill. and they are not responsible!

 

on a slight side rant...

the forests you see today will not be there tomorrow. the skin on your arms will not be there tomorrow. its the nature of living things and forests are living things. a no cut forest policy is tantamount to a no bath policy for humans. the shenendoah national park for example due to a no cut policy suffers from air pollutants, gypsy moth infestations, and other tree problems. every time i drive through it you see thousands of acres of dead and dying timber. this is a disgrace and an immoral waste of solar energy and renewable resources.... brought to you by the national park service.

 

in my view, and as wendell berry has also stated... the rapid environmentalist and the rabid industrialist have one thing in common.... a world devoid of humans. they hate us. humans are here to stay and believe it or not are part of the landscape as much as any animal and play just as an important part as any other player.

[Zig]

It's mostly just rhetoric, I don't believe these politicians that claim they want to protect the environment really have the work ethic to be able to practice what they preach. Mostly, they are just doing it to further their own political careers, and the numb-minded public just eats it up. What's happening here in America right now from my perspective is we have these politicians who want to convey themselves to the public as humanitarians, so they sign onto these globalist movements and advocate globalist policies that claim to be doing so much good for the world and environment but in reality these policies simply restrict the very freedoms and Constitutional rights that should be unalienable. The crazy thing is that for the most part these policies aren't event coming from our own government, they are coming from think tanks and foreign institutions that are condescending American values and subverting our culture and way of life. Capitalism is condemned by these globalist policies, America is condemned basically as being selfish / greedy and living beyond our means as well. There is some truth to these statements, but to condemn the freedoms and liberties that are protected underneath our nation's laws because rogue elements of our government and society are taking advantage is unfair to future generations that want freedom and peace.

Trying to get back on topic here, this international unity or order that is advocated so much by politicians... whether you believe it to be a one world government, or whatever your interpretation of that term happens to be... it revolves around globalist advocacies that are condemning basic fundamental American values like free-market capitalism, on the premises that unregulated behavior is destroying and killing the planet. In my opinion, it's criminal government intervention and criminal institutions that subvert and condemn laws that protect free society which are putting liberty at risk, and killing freedom... not the other way around. They also attempt to make the average free individual feel guilty about how the environment is being abused in order for us to accept new restrictive laws and regulations, when in reality it is government, large institutions and corporations that are responsible for a majority of the world's environmental and social strifes.

 

Look at BP, who was probably one of the biggest advocates of the recent green movement...

 

Here is another interesting article that touches upon the whole "Jews did it" portion of this discussion:

 

Oliver Stone: 'Jewish-Dominated Media' Prevents Hitler from Being Portrayed 'in Context'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alana-goodman/2010/07/25/oliver-stone-jewish-dominated-media-prevents-hitler-being-portrayed-c#ixzz=

[angelofdeath]

for the more 'conspiracy' oriented among us:

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north762.html

 

The National Parks: The Super-Rich's Greatest Idea

 

by Gary North

 

Ken Burns is at it again. This time, it is a PBS series on the national parks. He subtitles it "America's Greatest Idea."

 

The national parks are not America's greatest idea. They are the super-rich's greatest idea . . . for themselves.

 

The super rich love nature. Anyway, they love owning big chunks of nature. But they face competition. The masses can buy property right next door. Land developers buy up acreage and build condos or even worse, time-shares. Then Mr. and Mrs. Sack Lunch buy the condos and move in. They litter the area with themselves.

 

The super-rich want privacy. This is one of the three identifying marks of being super-rich today. First, you own magnificent houses that cannot be seen from the highway. They can be seen only by your peers, after driving down a long highway or from the air in a private plane or helicopter. Second, you hire lots of servants to manage these properties. Third, you own private aircraft to take you to your hidden properties with all the servants. The mark of great wealth in America is inconspicuous consumption.

 

Who are the main beneficiaries? The servants. They live on the properties year-round and get paid for the privilege. The super-rich enjoy the view twice a year for a couple of weeks. It costs them millions of dollars in forfeited income.

 

The super-rich like to buy low, watch it appreciate, and then never sell. They do not like price competition. So, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. devised a plan to get this. He began this just after the turn of the century in 1900. He bought up property in Maine. So did his peers – the younger super-rich. Then they gave the surrounding land to the National Park Service.

 

This was for The People. The People could come and visit, but they could not come and stay. The People are allowed to marvel at the scenic beauty. "If only we could own a piece of this!" they think.

 

Comes the answer from the family estates: "Too late, suckers!" That puts them in their place. That is a big part of being a card-carrying member of the super-rich. You put others in their place. The secret is to keep them from finding out how you do it. So, you fund "The National Parks: America's Greatest Idea."

 

 

They have run this restricted-access land scheme over and over since 1906. The popular place to have done this in my generation is in the area around Jackson Hole, Wyoming. But the first experiment was in Maine.

 

I wrote about this back in 2000. I described the three islands from which the true Powers That Be in the United States have built their family enclaves: Mr. Desert Island in Maine, Jekyll Island in Georgia, and Jupiter Island in Florida. You can read my essay here.

 

KEEPING OUT THE MASSES

 

The national parks remove land from land speculation. "All those in favor of grasping land speculators, please stand up." ("OK, North, you may sit down now.")

 

Land speculators buy property that they believe people would like to own. They develop the properties at their expense. If they guess wrong, they lose money – lots of money. So, they try to offer properties for sale that people will be willing to pay for. These properties are cut up and sold in terms of the taste of buyers. The horror!

 

The elite super-rich do not like what common people like. One of the ways that a super-rich family demonstrates its rise to status is to sit on the board of the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). This position is difficult to achieve. (This is described by a member of the elite, Nelson Aldrich IV, in his book, Old Money.) They know that if MOMA burned down tomorrow, the general public would not know or care. A few of the commoners would even rejoice. (Put me in this category.) General headquarters for the aesthetic war of America's richest elite against the common man's idea of beauty is MOMA.

 

The national parks allocate access in two ways: (1) first come, first serve and (2) price. Commoners must apply to reserve a pass into the popular parks, then drive there. If there is a waiting list, we know the price was set too low. If too few people show up at some less desirable park, we know the land is not being put to its highest use – highest use as determined by the free market's principle of allocation: "high bid wins."

 

The parks are becoming famous for huge forest fires. Rival theorists of land management have competed for a century to gain control on the National Park Service. There are the "let it burn" people. There are the "controlled burning" people. The parks are the great Federal laboratories for these two views.

 

There are also rival theories of park access. There are the hikers-only people. They are challenged by the internal combustion engine people. There are the bicycle trails people. What there aren't are "high bid wins" people.

 

A society can allocate resources by price or by power. The national parks have always been allocated by power. In this competition, The People lose. "Power to the People!" matches "I will still respect you in the morning" as a popular slogan. Both slogans promote the same result.

 

FUNDING FOR KEN BURNS

 

Ken Burns is a hired servant. He gets to do what he wants at other people's expense: the super-rich and the taxpayers.

 

Burns was funded by General Motors for 22 years. General Motors last year discovered that it is better for the United Auto Workers union to allocate by power than by price. The company had priced itself out of the market. It took an infusion of Federal money to keep the factories humming. Then the Obama administration gave controlling ownership to the UAW. The company immediately cut off funding for Burns. His latest documentary on the parks is the final cut for GM. An artist just cannot trust those blue collar types!

 

Burns has survived because the Public Broadcasting System has run his shows. He would not make it on any other network. PBS affiliates initially received grants of free television spectrum from the U.S. government. It also receives money from the Federal government. Had the principle of high bid wins not been banned by Federal law in the realm of broadcasting spectrum, I doubt that you would have heard of Ken Burns.

 

Aesthetically, his work appeals to the college-educated people who would rather not walk through MOMA, but who are afraid to admit this to anyone. PBS is where the super-rich fund the extension of their worldview. If they should ever quit, "viewers like you" will no longer be viewers: not enough funding. The tax-exempt foundation money keeps the people with brains and cultural influence on their side. Ken Burns is a man with brains.

 

He did a documentary on baseball. Let me know when he does a documentary on NASCAR.

 

CONCLUSION

 

My view is that the Federal government should auction off the national parks and use the money to reduce taxes. Soft-core conservatives think this money should be used to reduce the national debt. That is the equivalent of putting a 17-year-old female page on the staff of a Congressman. It only tempts them.

[Removed]

for the more 'conspiracy' oriented among us:

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north762.html

 

The National Parks: The Super-Rich's Greatest Idea

 

by Gary North

 

Ken Burns is at it again. This time, it is a PBS series on the national parks. He subtitles it "America's Greatest Idea."

 

The national parks are not America's greatest idea. They are the super-rich's greatest idea . . . for themselves.

 

The super rich love nature. Anyway, they love owning big chunks of nature. But they face competition. The masses can buy property right next door. Land developers buy up acreage and build condos or even worse, time-shares. Then Mr. and Mrs. Sack Lunch buy the condos and move in. They litter the area with themselves.

 

The super-rich want privacy. This is one of the three identifying marks of being super-rich today. First, you own magnificent houses that cannot be seen from the highway. They can be seen only by your peers, after driving down a long highway or from the air in a private plane or helicopter. Second, you hire lots of servants to manage these properties. Third, you own private aircraft to take you to your hidden properties with all the servants. The mark of great wealth in America is inconspicuous consumption.

 

Who are the main beneficiaries? The servants. They live on the properties year-round and get paid for the privilege. The super-rich enjoy the view twice a year for a couple of weeks. It costs them millions of dollars in forfeited income.

 

The super-rich like to buy low, watch it appreciate, and then never sell. They do not like price competition. So, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. devised a plan to get this. He began this just after the turn of the century in 1900. He bought up property in Maine. So did his peers – the younger super-rich. Then they gave the surrounding land to the National Park Service.

 

This was for The People. The People could come and visit, but they could not come and stay. The People are allowed to marvel at the scenic beauty. "If only we could own a piece of this!" they think.

 

Comes the answer from the family estates: "Too late, suckers!" That puts them in their place. That is a big part of being a card-carrying member of the super-rich. You put others in their place. The secret is to keep them from finding out how you do it. So, you fund "The National Parks: America's Greatest Idea."

 

 

They have run this restricted-access land scheme over and over since 1906. The popular place to have done this in my generation is in the area around Jackson Hole, Wyoming. But the first experiment was in Maine.

 

I wrote about this back in 2000. I described the three islands from which the true Powers That Be in the United States have built their family enclaves: Mr. Desert Island in Maine, Jekyll Island in Georgia, and Jupiter Island in Florida. You can read my essay here.

 

KEEPING OUT THE MASSES

 

The national parks remove land from land speculation. "All those in favor of grasping land speculators, please stand up." ("OK, North, you may sit down now.")

 

Land speculators buy property that they believe people would like to own. They develop the properties at their expense. If they guess wrong, they lose money – lots of money. So, they try to offer properties for sale that people will be willing to pay for. These properties are cut up and sold in terms of the taste of buyers. The horror!

 

The elite super-rich do not like what common people like. One of the ways that a super-rich family demonstrates its rise to status is to sit on the board of the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). This position is difficult to achieve. (This is described by a member of the elite, Nelson Aldrich IV, in his book, Old Money.) They know that if MOMA burned down tomorrow, the general public would not know or care. A few of the commoners would even rejoice. (Put me in this category.) General headquarters for the aesthetic war of America's richest elite against the common man's idea of beauty is MOMA.

 

The national parks allocate access in two ways: (1) first come, first serve and (2) price. Commoners must apply to reserve a pass into the popular parks, then drive there. If there is a waiting list, we know the price was set too low. If too few people show up at some less desirable park, we know the land is not being put to its highest use – highest use as determined by the free market's principle of allocation: "high bid wins."

 

The parks are becoming famous for huge forest fires. Rival theorists of land management have competed for a century to gain control on the National Park Service. There are the "let it burn" people. There are the "controlled burning" people. The parks are the great Federal laboratories for these two views.

 

There are also rival theories of park access. There are the hikers-only people. They are challenged by the internal combustion engine people. There are the bicycle trails people. What there aren't are "high bid wins" people.

 

A society can allocate resources by price or by power. The national parks have always been allocated by power. In this competition, The People lose. "Power to the People!" matches "I will still respect you in the morning" as a popular slogan. Both slogans promote the same result.

 

FUNDING FOR KEN BURNS

 

Ken Burns is a hired servant. He gets to do what he wants at other people's expense: the super-rich and the taxpayers.

 

Burns was funded by General Motors for 22 years. General Motors last year discovered that it is better for the United Auto Workers union to allocate by power than by price. The company had priced itself out of the market. It took an infusion of Federal money to keep the factories humming. Then the Obama administration gave controlling ownership to the UAW. The company immediately cut off funding for Burns. His latest documentary on the parks is the final cut for GM. An artist just cannot trust those blue collar types!

 

Burns has survived because the Public Broadcasting System has run his shows. He would not make it on any other network. PBS affiliates initially received grants of free television spectrum from the U.S. government. It also receives money from the Federal government. Had the principle of high bid wins not been banned by Federal law in the realm of broadcasting spectrum, I doubt that you would have heard of Ken Burns.

 

Aesthetically, his work appeals to the college-educated people who would rather not walk through MOMA, but who are afraid to admit this to anyone. PBS is where the super-rich fund the extension of their worldview. If they should ever quit, "viewers like you" will no longer be viewers: not enough funding. The tax-exempt foundation money keeps the people with brains and cultural influence on their side. Ken Burns is a man with brains.

 

He did a documentary on baseball. Let me know when he does a documentary on NASCAR.

 

CONCLUSION

 

My view is that the Federal government should auction off the national parks and use the money to reduce taxes. Soft-core conservatives think this money should be used to reduce the national debt. That is the equivalent of putting a 17-year-old female page on the staff of a Congressman. It only tempts them.

 

Ol' Gary North could work on his writing style. That article is terrible.

[lord_casek]

ohhhh this made my morning. Hi-fucking-larious.

 

 

Sean Hannity is a huge faggot, though.

[russell jones]

for the more 'conspiracy' oriented among us:

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north762.html

 

The National Parks: The Super-Rich's Greatest Idea

 

by Gary North

 

Ken Burns is at it again. This time, it is a PBS series on the national parks. He subtitles it "America's Greatest Idea."

 

The national parks are not America's greatest idea. They are the super-rich's greatest idea . . . for themselves.

 

The super rich love nature. Anyway, they love owning big chunks of nature. But they face competition. The masses can buy property right next door. Land developers buy up acreage and build condos or even worse, time-shares. Then Mr. and Mrs. Sack Lunch buy the condos and move in. They litter the area with themselves.

 

The super-rich want privacy. This is one of the three identifying marks of being super-rich today. First, you own magnificent houses that cannot be seen from the highway. They can be seen only by your peers, after driving down a long highway or from the air in a private plane or helicopter. Second, you hire lots of servants to manage these properties. Third, you own private aircraft to take you to your hidden properties with all the servants. The mark of great wealth in America is inconspicuous consumption.

 

Who are the main beneficiaries? The servants. They live on the properties year-round and get paid for the privilege. The super-rich enjoy the view twice a year for a couple of weeks. It costs them millions of dollars in forfeited income.

 

The super-rich like to buy low, watch it appreciate, and then never sell. They do not like price competition. So, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. devised a plan to get this. He began this just after the turn of the century in 1900. He bought up property in Maine. So did his peers – the younger super-rich. Then they gave the surrounding land to the National Park Service.

 

This was for The People. The People could come and visit, but they could not come and stay. The People are allowed to marvel at the scenic beauty. "If only we could own a piece of this!" they think.

 

Comes the answer from the family estates: "Too late, suckers!" That puts them in their place. That is a big part of being a card-carrying member of the super-rich. You put others in their place. The secret is to keep them from finding out how you do it. So, you fund "The National Parks: America's Greatest Idea."

 

 

They have run this restricted-access land scheme over and over since 1906. The popular place to have done this in my generation is in the area around Jackson Hole, Wyoming. But the first experiment was in Maine.

 

I wrote about this back in 2000. I described the three islands from which the true Powers That Be in the United States have built their family enclaves: Mr. Desert Island in Maine, Jekyll Island in Georgia, and Jupiter Island in Florida. You can read my essay here.

 

KEEPING OUT THE MASSES

 

The national parks remove land from land speculation. "All those in favor of grasping land speculators, please stand up." ("OK, North, you may sit down now.")

 

Land speculators buy property that they believe people would like to own. They develop the properties at their expense. If they guess wrong, they lose money – lots of money. So, they try to offer properties for sale that people will be willing to pay for. These properties are cut up and sold in terms of the taste of buyers. The horror!

 

The elite super-rich do not like what common people like. One of the ways that a super-rich family demonstrates its rise to status is to sit on the board of the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). This position is difficult to achieve. (This is described by a member of the elite, Nelson Aldrich IV, in his book, Old Money.) They know that if MOMA burned down tomorrow, the general public would not know or care. A few of the commoners would even rejoice. (Put me in this category.) General headquarters for the aesthetic war of America's richest elite against the common man's idea of beauty is MOMA.

 

The national parks allocate access in two ways: (1) first come, first serve and (2) price. Commoners must apply to reserve a pass into the popular parks, then drive there. If there is a waiting list, we know the price was set too low. If too few people show up at some less desirable park, we know the land is not being put to its highest use – highest use as determined by the free market's principle of allocation: "high bid wins."

 

The parks are becoming famous for huge forest fires. Rival theorists of land management have competed for a century to gain control on the National Park Service. There are the "let it burn" people. There are the "controlled burning" people. The parks are the great Federal laboratories for these two views.

 

There are also rival theories of park access. There are the hikers-only people. They are challenged by the internal combustion engine people. There are the bicycle trails people. What there aren't are "high bid wins" people.

 

A society can allocate resources by price or by power. The national parks have always been allocated by power. In this competition, The People lose. "Power to the People!" matches "I will still respect you in the morning" as a popular slogan. Both slogans promote the same result.

 

FUNDING FOR KEN BURNS

 

Ken Burns is a hired servant. He gets to do what he wants at other people's expense: the super-rich and the taxpayers.

 

Burns was funded by General Motors for 22 years. General Motors last year discovered that it is better for the United Auto Workers union to allocate by power than by price. The company had priced itself out of the market. It took an infusion of Federal money to keep the factories humming. Then the Obama administration gave controlling ownership to the UAW. The company immediately cut off funding for Burns. His latest documentary on the parks is the final cut for GM. An artist just cannot trust those blue collar types!

 

Burns has survived because the Public Broadcasting System has run his shows. He would not make it on any other network. PBS affiliates initially received grants of free television spectrum from the U.S. government. It also receives money from the Federal government. Had the principle of high bid wins not been banned by Federal law in the realm of broadcasting spectrum, I doubt that you would have heard of Ken Burns.

 

Aesthetically, his work appeals to the college-educated people who would rather not walk through MOMA, but who are afraid to admit this to anyone. PBS is where the super-rich fund the extension of their worldview. If they should ever quit, "viewers like you" will no longer be viewers: not enough funding. The tax-exempt foundation money keeps the people with brains and cultural influence on their side. Ken Burns is a man with brains.

 

He did a documentary on baseball. Let me know when he does a documentary on NASCAR.

 

CONCLUSION

 

My view is that the Federal government should auction off the national parks and use the money to reduce taxes. Soft-core conservatives think this money should be used to reduce the national debt. That is the equivalent of putting a 17-year-old female page on the staff of a Congressman. It only tempts them.

 

Come on AOD, I thought you were above this kind of stuff.

 

 

I guess John Muir was a hired servant too.

 

BTW, the writer really kills himself when he goes off on the MOMA tangent. He doesn't know jack shit about art if he thinks art buyers in this country didn't get dragged kicking and screaming into Modernism. On top of that, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article.

 

The PBS, GM, Ken Burns argument is fucked up in so many confused ways, I won't even go into it.

[Zig]

Come on AOD, I thought you were above this kind of stuff.

The PBS, GM, Ken Burns argument is fucked up in so many confused ways, I won't even go into it.

 

 

I think it's funny you keep saying shit like this whenever you disagree with something. "This is so fucked up in so many ways I don't even want to get into it." Just sayin.

[christo-f]

as previously stated...

if al gore, george soro's, warren buffett, michael moore, and a couple million limosine liberals who live in 5000 sq foot houses and drive bmw's would pool their resources they surely could buy whatever lands they want. whether it be millions of acres of private forest or how many acres of govt owned forest. the parachuting example would work only for property that is in a state of non ownership. which in my view state owned land does qualify for, but i dont want to argue this point. for simplicities sake.

the point being... if the people who wanted to protect mountains, mosquito infested swamps, etc... they should put their money where there mouths are, purchase 'environmentally sensitive' land, just like any nature conservancy does.

for instance, i like to shoot. but you dont see me lobbying government to institute 'national shooting ranges' for all to enjoy and to pay for it with tax payer money 'liberated' from the liberal anti gunners down the street. why should the bunny huggers be afforded the luxury of having their outdoor activities subsidized? the reason why the greens dont want to do this is because they would then have to put their OWN money, where there mouths are giving up vacations and cruises and mercedes benz's in exchange for part ownership of some desolate canyon or swamp. given that they can buy and save everything they would have to choose between their prime down town real estate with a 'view' or save the endangered maggots that inhabit some obscure stretch of river. it fits right in with their world view. give to the poor by taking other peoples money. give everyone health insurance while using other peoples money. create national forests by using other peoples money.

 

we must prioritize.

but they dont want to prioritize with their own bank accounts. they want to use the govt which uses others peoples money to do their good deeds.

in the end they havent even attempted to try to purchase lands like this for preservation... yet gun owners in nearly every non urban county in american all pool their resources together to preserve land to shoot on and to hunt.

short of shows a divide between doers and talkers dont ya think? and hunters are much better stewards of the environment than any park ranger or bmw bolshevik sipping cocktails on their urban roof top loft frothing at the mouth talking about which policy is better than the current one in order to 'do something' about the environment.

 

Ah, this rant seems to be more a polemic against rich people than anything else. You make out like the only people that want to preserve the environment are related to Scrooge McDuck. Having a hard time responding to this....

 

 

ok then, but in your case the cost of pollution is 0 because no one owns the property. if we had liability laws in place and a court system that enforced them the cost to the paint manufacturer dumping waste into a river owned by someone else, therefore violating the river owners rights and destroying the water rights of others, the costs are so high they would not do it and would have to dispose of it properly. even so... not looking at the costs... the river owner would file an injunction and atleast get the polluter to stop and compensate for damages. (had to throw this in just to show that its not all about 'cost' its about violation of rights)

 

 

 

how about i phrase it another way for you?

say the city of pittsburg (super industrial city) was composed solely of factories and there were no property owners within 10 miles of the city. the air pollution and water pollution outside the city limits reached 5 miles out. no one owned the property in between. this would then mean the first one to homestead the property, the polluter, would own it. its their baby. it would function as a dump. a land fill. they have to deal with any liability that comes from waste seeping off of this property. if they pollute the air which in turn pollutes others property they should be liable. if we can use forensics to prosecute murder, surely they can use forensics to prosecute environmental crimes.

another example is an airport. its noisy.

after the airport is built... people build houses next to it and say...'shut the hell up over there its noisy!'

go to court... court should rule that the air port was there first and essentially homesteaded the noise rights over that area.

 

So commercial interest, which almost always has more buying power than the individual (not to mention legal access than the individual to fight matters out in court) is free to buy land and destroy it at will. So a paint factory can buy a lake and destroy the whole thing to save them money. Do you endorse that idea?

 

 

 

 

 

 

only in a limited capacity.

i believe essentially in a (i hate to say it because im not a huge fan of her) ayn randian type of state/society. one where govt exists only to protect property rights. most notably which includes a domestic police force to protect against bad guys, a military to protect against foreign bad guys and a court system to settle disputes, etc. so in a strict sense i believe the state can own the buildings and property it needs to do its functions. and this should be set up largely on a consenting tax basis with an option to not partake in or fund these activities if you do not want them. (leave the free rider problem out for expediencies sake, at the moment) yeah because choosing not to pay for a military that protects from foreign invasion is a difficult fit there. Also, person has company pollute his land, he doesn't pay taxes so he attacks company ownership to protect his land and then goes to prison using a service that he didn't pay for.

however owning the majority of land west of the mississippi river is not what i have in mind. the basis being... if a state seizes wealth by force... (a robber steals money and then buys a house) and then buys a forest with the money.... is this legitimate? does the robber really own the house as well? or is the rightful owner the owner of the money that had his property taken from him?

 

 

 

i'll remind you that one cannot strip mine anything if the owner refuses to sell to the strip miners.

 

YEs but the state owns the land now, so if your model is implemented then Rio Tinto, who has more money than all these rich people who you seem to have a fixation on, will outbid any other interest. Why would fucking Anne Hathaway get it before Rio Tinto does?

 

Secondly, what is to stop other foreign interests such as Chinese state owned companies from coming in with more money than anyone else in the world (other than the US and Japan) and simply buying the USA? IT's a free market, right?

 

which is why if the nature conservancy of warren buffett/berkshire hathaway/soro's/al gore owns the land and refuses to sell, nothing can be done. what is most economical to do with the land matters not at all in this case. its the same as the one little row house on the city block that is falling down because they refused to sell to the big sky scraper company that encompasses the rest of the block. they didnt have this in the soviet union.

 

Once again, your view of the Soviet Union is not at all representative of reality.

 

in fact i am closely involved in a similar situation that you are describing. my great grandfather died 10 years ago leaving his property to his 4 kids. long story short, it is the last large tract of acreage in the area that is pretty suburban at this point. him and 3 other property owners all adjoining are the last hold outs. the kids who own the property just signed a contract to sell the land to a developer along with 2 of the other property owners. all of these same people have routinely complained that 'everything is being developed!' their entire lives. yet they all had it within their capacity to not sell the land and there fore preserve it. i know if i personally owned the land, they could have this last remaining acreage when they took it from my cold dead hands.

 

and of course the second problem of pollution would be dealt with by private ownership of the water ways and other property and proper application of liability law.

 

You've disregarded some key points in my post, so I ask again; how can individuals outbid multinational companies for land ownership?

 

 

which begs the question of, how large do we want the state?

big enough to give us everything we want, that also means it can take everything we have?

i'd argue that govt environmental policy shouldnt even exist. it is not a proper function of government.

to be sure in a free society, there will be land use that you dont agree with. just like there is social activities that people do that you dont agree with. but do you have a right to interfere with their business? i'd submit that if no ones rights are violated in the process of one using their property all is hunky dory.

environmental policy in his country started out with basic noble goals. preserve the bald eagle. preserve the grand canyon. now it means that if you see an owl on your property the govt can nationalize your farm. it means you cant build a house because you might disturb the local snail darter population. it means you cant have a home saw mill on your farm because a farm is for 'farming.' it means when they build their rattlesnake sanctuaries next to farming communities they have snakes pouring into farms, biting animals and children and offsetting the natural ecological order. when they reintroduce predators into wild areas bordering farm country, they make it illegal to protect your herds. if you shoot the predators you go to jail. doesnt matter how many chickens or lambs they kill. and they are not responsible!

 

on a slight side rant...

the forests you see today will not be there tomorrow. the skin on your arms will not be there tomorrow. its the nature of living things and forests are living things. a no cut forest policy is tantamount to a no bath policy for humans. the shenendoah national park for example due to a no cut policy suffers from air pollutants, gypsy moth infestations, and other tree problems. every time i drive through it you see thousands of acres of dead and dying timber. this is a disgrace and an immoral waste of solar energy and renewable resources.... brought to you by the national park service.

 

in my view, and as wendell berry has also stated... the rapid environmentalist and the rabid industrialist have one thing in common.... a world devoid of humans. they hate us. humans are here to stay and believe it or not are part of the landscape as much as any animal and play just as an important part as any other player.

 

 

 

 

Still some key questions you haven't addressed:

 

When all these rich people with Mercs that you seem to be fixated on buy the land so they can save it, who are they paying the money to?

 

What makes you think that conservationists would be able to outbid multinational interests (or even foreign national interests for that matter)?

 

 

 

 

Some new questions:

 

In a free market what is to stop foreign states from coming in and buying up massive parts of strategically important land. For example, all of your deep water ports, oil/gas fields and river systems that support transport, arable land, mineral deposits?

 

You speak of having a tax payer system that supports a defense force that protects from foreign invasion. Does this also include a naval force that can protect your shipping lines? For what if you only had a brown water navy and Japan decided to block any vessels crossing the pacific and Germany was torpedoing any commercial vessels crossing the atlantic? Would you see a volunteer system being able to support an expeditionary naval and air force that could protect the assets of US private interests off shore, in international waters?

[christo-f]

I think it's funny you keep saying shit like this whenever you disagree with something. "This is so fucked up in so many ways I don't even want to get into it." Just sayin.

 

Some things are really so ridiculous and so far off the mark that they are hardly worth responding to.

 

Like a 15 year old trying to tell yo that he was the first person to ever hit a train in NYC with a marker. It's so ridiculous that you won't even bother responding.

 

I too think that that particular article is in the same category as an O'Reily rant or even a North Korean threat of raining down revolutionary oceans of righteous fire for having a discussion in the UN about human rights.

 

Just ridiculous in so many ways it has no credibility.

[Zig]

or even a North Korean threat of raining down revolutionary oceans of righteous fire for having a discussion in the UN about human rights.

 

lol :lol:

[russell jones]

Some things are really so ridiculous and so far off the mark that they are hardly worth responding to.

 

Like a 15 year old trying to tell yo that he was the first person to ever hit a train in NYC with a marker. It's so ridiculous that you won't even bother responding.

 

I too think that that particular article is in the same category as an O'Reily rant or even a North Korean threat of raining down revolutionary oceans of righteous fire for having a discussion in the UN about human rights.

 

Just ridiculous in so many ways it has no credibility.

 

Thanks christo

 

...and to Zig, I think I took plenty of time to respond to one of these conspiracy type arguments. I don't have the time or inclination to waste too much energy on something so disjointed and lacking in historical perspective.

[angelofdeath]

Still some key questions you haven't addressed:

 

 

i'll get to it in a second.. but first i gotta point out.... you gotta do something about the red text for answers inside a quoted text block. its hard as balls to try to respond to it.

 

When all these rich people with Mercs that you seem to be fixated on buy the land so they can save it, who are they paying the money to?

 

you dont have to be 'rich...' that is the thing. anyone can do it. i wanted to use michael moore, and a few billionaires for examples because they easily have the means and the agenda to do what you want them to do. they have the money and they have the ideology. what more could you want? in fact they have so much extra cash its nuts. the first thing these clowns should be doing is leading by example instead of looking to big brother for answers to their pet projects. just shows they are hypocritical idiots who dont want to put their money where their mouthes are. they are all to busy investing in monsanto, merck, halliburton, and other companies all the while denouncing the rich and in moore's case.. denouncing the stock market all together.

but this is not to say... all the average middle class greenies cant do the same. and actually many do.

in fact it is quite the trend in the US these days to move out of urban areas. there are mcmansions popping up all over america in rural areas. if these people would just build a small little 1500sq ft 3/2 instead of a 5000 sq ft mansion, they could buy 50 acres to preserve as they see fit instead of just 2 acre and a big ass house. imagine if 10,000 like minded greenies moved to a certain area and created essentially 'nature preserves.' this is a much better solution than sovietized, nationalized, poorly run, poorly stewarded national 'parks.'

 

if anyone chooses to purchase property, they would obviously buy it from the owners of the property. if the govt owns it... they would purchase from the govt.

 

i dont get what is so weird about this line of thought. people do it all the time. but doing it to have a nice place to hike or look at is just absurd. i guess because it violates the existing govt-greeny paradigm. shooters do it all the time. private clubs buy hundreds and thousands of acres to preserve in order to have a pristine environment to shoot on. hunters do it all the time. they pool money together in teh form of a club or by renting hunting leases. thousands and thousands of people do this every year on thousands and thousands of acres of land. why is it so absurd to suggest that if hikers want to walk through the woods they should pool their money and buy it or rent it from someone who offers such a service?

 

the national parks and forests are political footballs. they are poorly managed due to over zealous UN NATURAL green environmental policy thought up in think tanks and a top urban lofts instead of out in the woods. they offer under-valued timber to drive down prices so private land owners have no incentive to steward their own forests! it only makes economic sense for the people who want unmolested forest to buy it. 'wilderness' as the greens understand it is not a naturally occurring thing. the entire national park, blm lands and national forests are nothing but tug of war's between environmental interests, logging interests, and recreation interests. it only makes sense to allow each to buy the properties that they want. let the greenies buy their own forests, steward them, and quit making un natural wilderness areas that get burned to the ground and end up harming property owners by the thousands whenever a wild fire comes through. and you cant sue the govt for property damage caused by their poor forestry practices and their inefficient fire fighters (they always have to hire private 'merc' fire fighters because the socialist fire fighters always fail when a wild fire happens.)

 

and why all this 'merc' talk?

anyone who does something for money is a 'merc?' should we have a draft?

i mean, i get my bread from a 'merc' baker and i get my shoes from 'merc' shoe sellers.

 

What makes you think that conservationists would be able to outbid multinational interests (or even foreign national interests for that matter)?

 

this is a silly line of reasoning. as you assume that ALL land has a super interest for 'multinational interests.' if this were the case... why can people even afford to buy their own houses? why do privately owned family farms exist? wouldnt all the multinationals just out bid everybody and force them all to live in 200 sq ft apartments in some urban block some where?

 

but if the conservationists had george soro's and warren buffett, two prominent liberals, and two of the richest men in the world, they should not have problem outbidding the 'multi nationals.'

 

 

In a free market what is to stop foreign states from coming in and buying up massive parts of strategically important land. For example, all of your deep water ports, oil/gas fields and river systems that support transport, arable land, mineral deposits?

 

nothing.

they have been doing it in the US for years. foreigners have been buying or attempting to buy US ports for decades. i always hear farmers talking about out west, of the cattle land in private hands, the japanese own the most of it.

 

Does this also include a naval force that can protect your shipping lines? For what if you only had a brown water navy and Japan decided to block any vessels crossing the pacific and Germany was torpedoing any commercial vessels crossing the atlantic? Would you see a volunteer system being able to support an expeditionary naval and air force that could protect the assets of US private interests off shore, in international waters?

 

i believe a navy would be included in a 'national defense' strategy.

 

im going to attempt to catch all the red text:

 

 

So commercial interest, which almost always has more buying power than the individual (not to mention legal access than the individual to fight matters out in court) is free to buy land and destroy it at will. So a paint factory can buy a lake and destroy the whole thing to save them money. Do you endorse that idea?

 

one mans 'destroy' is another mans 'beauty.'

 

look, people do this all the time.

whenever someone buys a peice of property and begins digging on it to put in a foundation, he 'destroys' it. whenever we put waste into a land fill, we 'destroy' it. if theoretically, a paint factory, could buy a lake and dump paint into it, i guess it could. but how efficient is this? how much paint could a paint factory dump into a lake and keep it contained? how long would this operation be able to stay in business? my guess is not to long. seems to me it would be hard to keep this from contaminating water supply that is claimed by others, it would result in run off, etc etc.

 

your logic also includes a 100% govt success rate in prosecution and conviction on 'environmental' crimes. just because they pass a law doesnt create utopia. it can be only a mild deterrent to irrational behavior. they have laws against murder, but there is still murder. the difference being in the private lawsuits against a company instead of a govt going after a company for damages... is the people actually have a stake in the claim. the govt doesnt. no one in govt loses if they dont properly prosecute a polluter. who is better to hold someone accountable for damages? a property owner or a bureaucrat?

 

yeah because choosing not to pay for a military that protects from foreign invasion is a difficult fit there. Also, person has company pollute his land, he doesn't pay taxes so he attacks company ownership to protect his land and then goes to prison using a service that he didn't pay for.

 

there are plenty of theories of how property and liability suits would be settled. competing courts and arbitration is the most common theory put forth by anarcho capitalists... im not well versed, but can send you links if you really want to hear more on it.

 

Once again, your view of the Soviet Union is not at all representative of reality.

 

what? my example of the property rights being respected in a free country and being disregarded in a collectivist country..... is not representative of reality? what planet are you living on.

 

the soviets collectivized the entire damn country for the most part. if the soviets wanted to put in building and a person didnt want to sell their property, what do you think they did, built around the property owner? get a grip dude....

maybe we should ask the people in the gulag what happened to the 'hold outs.'

 

how can individuals outbid multinational companies for land ownership?

 

i addressed this before... but the answer is 'who cares.' these are mere 'technical' problems. like 'how do you build a bridge...'

individuals compete all the time with 'multi nationals' and it seems that everyone gets a long. walmart is located over there and the middle class neighborhood is located over here.

you seem to imply that just because a 'multinational corp' has money that it also wants to buy every sq foot of the US or the world. if this is the case.... why is currently keeping multinationals from owning ALL the non govt owned forest land in the US right now? there is no law against it. why dont they own all the forests and private acreage in the US? answer:

in three parts.

 

1. you must have someone who wants to sell.

2. you must have someone who wants to buy.

3. you must come to an agreement.

 

it doesnt matter how much money a 'multinational corp' has... if someone doesnt want to sell, then they cant buy it. and a multi national isnt going to suddenly start buying up land just to have it.

 

the govt, however, when they created the national forests and parks across the country, when they built the TVA dam system with 50 something nuclear plants (so much for govt being 'environmentally friendly).... they displaced thousands of people and destroyed hundreds if not thousands of communities. they kicked people off of their property that they loved and stewarded for centuries... for it to become part of a 'national forest' or national 'park' just so someone can say that 'the environment' is being protected.

[russell jones]

And before I forget... to AOD, Pittsburgh is not super-industrial in any way shape or form, and hasn't been since before the 1980's. The only factory that is still open that I can think of is Heinz. Pittsburgh's economy is computers, robotics, service, banking and corporate headquarters.

[Zig]

Thanks christo

 

...and to Zig, I think I took plenty of time to respond to one of these conspiracy type arguments. I don't have the time or inclination to waste too much energy on something so disjointed and lacking in historical perspective.

 

you did... i'll give you that. i disagree with you that it is disjointed and lacking historical perspective but to each his own.

[angelofdeath]

And before I forget... to AOD, Pittsburgh is not super-industrial in any way shape or form, and hasn't been since before the 1980's. The only factory that is still open that I can think of is Heinz. Pittsburgh's economy is computers, robotics, service, banking and corporate headquarters.

 

it was just an example because of its historical 'industrial-ness' 'steel city;' etc

 

alright...'insert any super industrial city for pittsburgh in that line i used.'

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I would reply, but I don't have time, I mean...some people's opinions are just too outlandish and crazy for it to even warrant a reply.

 

So what am I doing in this thread?

 

Perhaps discrediting things without any sort of substance, but my post count and username. Because why? I'm soooo much smarter than the rest of you, and that's just how I roll.

 

Wait, I'm also drunk too.

[christo-f]

Get n education and you'll understand.

[Removed]

AOD has a good point when he speaks about private ownership of national parks. Although I have no great objection to government owned and maintained national parks, as Christo-f points out they are quite effective in Australia. It is highly possible, and probably quite an positive solution to have private groups of like-minded people purchasing land collectively with some kind of proviso in the contract that the land will not be developed for 150-200 years (for example). I know of people who have bought into a similar property ownership scheme and are quite satisfied knowing they have preserved a large parcel of land which is adjacent to their small community, which also acts as a buffer against development encroaching on their community.

 

Over the last six months or so I have had a bit of an ideological shift and have now come to recognise that private initiatives, when possible, trump government action for a number of reasons. The main one being that perpetual lobbying of government to address each and every emerging problem leads that society down a path towards a messy and problematic legal system, which stifles private initiative, and does so in a highly inefficient way.

[angelofdeath]

i guess i could further elaborate on what frankie is talking about...

 

in my extended family... the family farm is owned by a trust. the trust is set up in a manner that forbids outside sale of the land, or rather sale of the land to people other than the family. and it is of course in a per stirpees set up, so the next child in line inherits the parents share, etc. the trustee's and/or benefactor can only farm the land and/or sell timber as necessary, rent the pastures, etc. nothing else can be done to 'develop' the farm in any way past this. and this arrangement was put together by a bunch of dumb backwards hillbillies living so far up in the mountains they didnt even have electricity until the 1960's. and the effects of this is wonderful.

and it is the perfect example because two parts of the family (same guy originally owned both farms, but he had two different wives so the farm was split down the middle and given to the two different sides of the family in the same trust set up... about 150 acres per family.)

own adjoining parcels. every other family in the entire area is of like mind. they dont want anything to change. these two big parcels border national forest. the difference in land stewardship is like night and day. dead wood is brought to the houses to burn for heat in the winter. marketable timber is sold every decade or so. the national forest land is horribly maintained. people destroy it. trash is every where. hunters have deer carcasses everywhere... not to mention the bad effects of introducing un natural predator numbers into the national forest (bears, rattlesnakes, etc) which then spill over onto the private lands, damage their property, animals, etc and it is illegal to shoot the invaders.

 

in more 'eco' conscience areas of the country, like outside certain 'new age' mecca's, there are these sort of gated communities taht are popping up. it involves each person buying a house with relatively small acreage... and the community all being nestled into huge tract of land that is voluntarily commonly owned.. (say 500 acres per 20 families). you are then left with a situation where people have the incentive to steward the land, but are also forbidden by right of contract to clear cut the woods and put in a strip mall in the middle of the community. (for example)

[russell jones]

it was just an example because of its historical 'industrial-ness' 'steel city;' etc

 

alright...'insert any super industrial city for pittsburgh in that line i used.'

 

 

Yeah I knew that... but I hate to see my city being used in that way. The reputation was deserved before the 60's, but Pittsburghers hate how the impression stuck after the city cleaned up.

 

Why not use Gary, Indiana instead everyone? The sky is green there.

[Zig]

What are your thoughts on the latest wikileaks documents that were published concerning Pakistan?

 

Obama - Nothing new has come out of these WikiLeak documents. Kucinich - Nothing is New??? So, We Knew that all these Innocent Civilians were being killed. That the Pakistan Govt were supporting the Taliban. That the Afghanistan Govt is Hopelessly corrupt. And, we're Still there? Something is Wrong!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJjtspHRZJw&feature=sub&videos=Q3869o-hU_4

 

I think wikileaks is doing great work on the whistleblowing front, but it seems as if the founder is throwing the subject of 9/11 conspiracy under the bus.

 

WikiLeaks Founder, “Constantly Annoyed that People Are Distracted by False Conspiracies Such as 9/11″

http://cryptogon.com/?p=16641

 

I'm sure a few of you agree with him, as I'm certain that many of you here aren't interested or believe anything is "credible" concerning alternative 9/11 theories. Just wondering your thoughts on that whole situation...

[Zig]

I'm not posting this article for any other reason but to spark further discussion in this topic, if you think the article is bull shit just say so and explain why...

 

Oath Breakers and the Age of Treason

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2010/07/oath-breakers-and-age-of-treason.html

 

"Patriotism," said George Orwell, "has nothing to do with conservatism." Love for one's country is not right or left; it is not the sole province of the poor, or the rich; and it can be expressed in different ways. Benjamin Franklin gave voice to the spirit of patriotism when he said; "We must all hang together or we shall most assuredly all hang separately." Today, patriotism is in need of greater allegiance than ever before. Almost all countries in the world, but especially America because it is the largest military power, are under the threat of a global dictatorial "new world order" that is being deceptively established as the coming together of nations in the interests of saving the planet, but in reality serves the interests of a private international banking cartel, and the global corporate elite. It is a war between two classes more than it is a war between two philosophies. Both sides, the nationalist patriots, and the globalist oligarchs, have much to gain, and lose.

 

How did we get to this point in history? Telling the facts is complicated because they are not gossip material, and they are hidden from public discussion by the mainstream media, but once they are grasped, it is really quite simple to understand. Powerful elites have always dominated nations, from the Greeks to the modern world, and America is not an exception, but never have the top one percent of oligarchs acted so aggressively against the interests of the people.

 

Since the end of WWII, America has been misdirected by its government controllers in the biggest way, and for the most evil designs. John F. Kennedy tried to change course, but he got shot in the head for it. It wasn't pretty. Forty-seven years after his death, and there still isn't any sense of national closure because his true murderers have not faced justice. In fact, they still rule America through the usual tricks of the trade: deception, secrecy, and fear. Largely unknown to them until now, the American people have suffered under a tyrannical and traitorous shadow corporate-state that killed their President, and which operates secretly behind a cowardly, and self-serving political class, in the name of "National Security." High treason, war crimes, and state terror are the defining features of this "National Security State." And it was created for purposes that are not much different from those of the Nazi regime; power, greed, and world domination for elite profits.

 

In short, America was covertly overthrown by a tight-knit group of criminal insiders. The coup happened in stages, and achieved through deception, assassination, and terrorism. The seminal dates are 1913, when the private Federal Reserve Bank was established; 1963, which saw the assassination of a real and independent president; and 2000, the beginning of the Bush Administration and the reign of the neoconservatives, who got into power by stealing the election.

 

From the fifties onward, with the honorable exception of John F. Kennedy's brief reign as President, the American people have been treated as slaves, and held hostage by their much despised government, public representatives, and shadow rulers. No more a constitutional republic, America became a totalitarian "top secret" empire that is guilty of the invasion and occupation of two innocent countries in the Middle East, and is waging the largest illegal war in history, a "war on freedom" disguised as a "war on terrorism."

 

Outlandish language like the "war on terrorism" is the norm in Orwellian America, where everything is the reverse of what government leaders say. The "Patriot Act" of 2001 is actually the "Traitor Act." The war on terrorism is the war on freedom; the 9/11 investigation is the 9/11 cover up; Israel's acts of self-defense are in reality acts of criminal aggression; the financial collapse is the financial heist and con; hope and change is more of the same; national security is national tyranny; a new world order is the last vestiges of an old world's chaos. But the truth matters little, and instead, lies are cherished. Like sheep, the people are deceived into loving the traitors, and fearing the patriots.

 

Mass propaganda, secrecy, and deception are the linchpins of the NSS. The American people are denied the full knowledge of the shadow government's crimes and lies, and since they lack foresight, knowledge of the past, and historical imagination, many of them can't anticipate future deceptions, and future acts of state terror by their two-faced criminal leaders. But that is changing, as more people in America and around the world are waking up, and starting to see the great political crisis that hangs over America, and indeed, all of mankind.

 

The times we're living in are so tense that I can hardly sleep at night. Civilization is threatened by the presence of lunatic criminals in the highest positions of power in America, England, Israel, and Iran. For Iranians, resisting the crazy Mullahs isn't easy. And for Americans, resisting the Transnational Tyrannical State also won't be easy. It has many resources, and lots of faithful idiots who don't mind following orders.

 

It will require mass civil disobedience in America, and the threat of nation-wide citizen revolt, to get rid of the tyrants and traitors that are in the highest levels of the country's government, banks, media, and corporations. To organize such a resistance not just in America, but in all Western nations, means dropping the labels of "conservative" and "liberal," ignoring petty ideological differences, and sacrificing our individual egos for the greater good - a free country, and a free world. So far, very few groups have emerged with this view in mind. Oath Keepers is one of them. It is a bipartisan and patriotic organization that includes active-duty soldiers, veterans, National Guard, police officers, fire fighters, and regular citizens who are determined to take back America from the tyrants and traitors, and reestablish the republic on the ruins of a collapsing empire.

 

On April 19, 2009, members of the Oath Keepers commemorated the first revolutionary war by reciting their oath to support, and defend the Constitution, and promising to never obey unlawful orders. The video of them raising their hands, and declaring that they will follow their conscience, and protect the Constitution is very inspiring, and moving, which is why I was so angry when Mother Jones magazine sought to discredit, and tarnish the image of the Oath Keepers in an article written by Justine Sharrock called, "Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason." In response to that article, I wrote "10 Reasons Why Progressives Should Support Oath Keepers." Due to government brainwashing, some people actually need to be reminded that those who break their oaths are the traitors, and those who keep them are the patriots. You think it would be obvious. But it's not. A lot of Americans are still in deep denial about the dangerous state of the country, and the criminality of their leaders who have betrayed them, and forsaken the grand experiment that is America.

 

In his classic book, "The Rape of the Mind" Dutch-American psychoanalyst Joost A.M. Meerloo wrote about the denial of hardcore facts in totalitarian societies:

"Modern psychology has taught us how strongly the mental mechanism of denial of reality works. The eye bypasses external occurrences when the mind does not want them to happen. Secondary justifications and fantasies are formed to support and explain these denials. In Totalitaria we find the same despising of reality facts as we do in schizophrenia. How else are we to explain the fact that Hitler was still moving his armies on paper after they were already defeated?"

The left-leaning individuals that fear, and hate the Oath Keepers because they are "conspiratorial," and "intellectually backward" are either fools, or cowards. They view the Oath Keepers as "right-wing" who only want Obama out of the White House. But that's not true. They are interested in fixing larger issues, and ending illegal spying, torture, and other government abuses which reflect the breakdown of the rule of law in Washington D.C. And they understand that both parties are responsible for the mess that America is in. Oath Keepers put the country and the constitution above any party or person. The group's success is a strong indication that the traditional left-right identities are now meaningless. A significant number of Americans have acquired a new political consciousness that is surfacing in groups like Oath Keepers. They shun both the Democrats, and Republicans, and make room for small political disagreements because they care about reestablishing the rule of law, and saving the country. What matters to them is the truth, freedom, and justice; not petty partisan issues.

 

George Orwell recognized the lack of bleeding-heart patriotism in many leftist "yuppie" intellectuals not as a virtue, but a fault. In his essay "My Country Right or Left," he wrote:

"I grew up in an atmosphere tinged with militarism, and afterwards I spent five boring years within the sound of bugles. To this day it gives me a faint feeling of sacrilege not to stand to attention during 'God save the King.' That is childish , of course, but I would sooner have had that kind of upbringing than be like the left-wing intellectuals who are so 'enlightened' that they cannot understand the most ordinary emotions. It is exactly the people whose hearts have never leapt at the sight of a Union Jack who will flinch from revolution when the moment comes," (My Country Right or Left, Orwell's Essays, pg. 137).

The conservatives who religiously supported President Bush even while the rest of the country saw him for the traitor that he is are probably the ones who will sacrifice themselves to save their country if, and when they wake up and realize that the real enemies of America are not in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Iran, but in Washington, and Tel Aviv. They have a lot of passion in their hearts, and love their country. The problem is that they are politically dumb, and very gullible. But they are not hopeless. And neither are left-leaning progressives who like to demean traditional conservatives rather than understand their views. Both sides are victims of brainwashing, the conservatives are under the hypnosis of Fox News, and the progressives follow the Democrat party wherever it leads them.

 

I am optimistic that conservatives, progressives, libertarians, and independents will come together to form a wide political tent to help America ride the apocalyptic storm of economic collapse, foreign wars, and internal political turmoil. The American dream is worth saving. The Republic wasn't perfect, but it beats tyranny, and anarchy. Freedom is worth fighting, and dying for. And after the war is won, once the new world order is defeated, when the songs of patriots are sung, and traitors hung, we can truly enjoy the gifts of this life. But not until then.

 

'Though those that are betrayed Do feel the treason sharply, yet the traitor Stands in worse case of woe.'

- William Shakespeare

[Zig]

my favorite paragraph...

 

Outlandish language like the "war on terrorism" is the norm in Orwellian America, where everything is the reverse of what government leaders say. The "Patriot Act" of 2001 is actually the "Traitor Act." The war on terrorism is the war on freedom; the 9/11 investigation is the 9/11 cover up; Israel's acts of self-defense are in reality acts of criminal aggression; the financial collapse is the financial heist and con; hope and change is more of the same; national security is national tyranny; a new world order is the last vestiges of an old world's chaos. But the truth matters little, and instead, lies are cherished. Like sheep, the people are deceived into loving the traitors, and fearing the patriots.

[angelofdeath]

oathkeepers probably represents the most hope i have had out of any organization that has came to being in my time.

who could NOT like this group? all they are asking is that you obey your oath and reaffirm it, understand it and defend it. the oath keepers mission is not any more subversive than taking the oath its self. its only subversive to those that take the oath as a mere formality before they destroy the constitution and rule of law.

of course the oath keepers have been demonized by the usual suspects... oreilly, matthews, maddow, adl, splc, etc.

 

but as has been the case and as people have been realizing lately.... that you arent worth a shit unless you are on the splc 'hatriot' list. it is now considered a sign that you are doing something right to be ridiculed by the regimists like matthews and oreilly.

 

long live oath keepers

[christo-f]

What are your thoughts on the latest wikileaks documents that were published concerning Pakistan?

 

Obama - Nothing new has come out of these WikiLeak documents. Kucinich - Nothing is New??? So, We Knew that all these Innocent Civilians were being killed. That the Pakistan Govt were supporting the Taliban. That the Afghanistan Govt is Hopelessly corrupt. And, we're Still there? Something is Wrong!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJjtspHRZJw&feature=sub&videos=Q3869o-hU_4

 

I think wikileaks is doing great work on the whistleblowing front, but it seems as if the founder is throwing the subject of 9/11 conspiracy under the bus.

 

WikiLeaks Founder, “Constantly Annoyed that People Are Distracted by False Conspiracies Such as 9/11″

http://cryptogon.com/?p=16641

 

I'm sure a few of you agree with him, as I'm certain that many of you here aren't interested or believe anything is "credible" concerning alternative 9/11 theories. Just wondering your thoughts on that whole situation...

 

It's not the papers that were published that you should be interested in. You want to see the stuff that Wiki kept under wraps. Good chance that it was more tactical stuff that exposed sources and methods though. Whilst interesting it's not the heart of the matter, that was the stuff involving the ISI and Haqqani.

 

Wiki did the US govt a service in leaking these. The issue of Pak supporting violence in Afghan though Haqqani has been public for years. Just read the South Asian press and it's there every day. It's also not as if the US military hasn't been publicly complaining about it for ages now either. But you can't blame Pakistan, the US/NATO will pull out and the shit will still be there. It's Pakistan's neighbour, of course they want to control the joint so India doesn't sandwich them!

 

These wiki leaks bought it to the forefront of the public attention, this allows the US to put greater pressure on Pak, not that it will make too much difference in the long run though.

 

I don't have an opinion on the 9/11 bit, not my interest.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Get n education and you'll understand.

 

Learn how to detect sarcasm and you'll understand.

[christo-f]

Learn how to drink and you'll understand.