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

[lord_casek]

Mexico is mineral rich. Very much so.

[MedicineCabinet]

...

[christo-f]

Mexico is mineral rich. Very much so.

 

MX has zinc, silver, copper, gold and oil, sure. But why would you move in and end up imposing law and order which would result in labor laws, minimum wages, environmental regulations, anti-corruption and all the other things that will end up making it more expensive for you to use yourself. If you want to take over the industry to own the profits you do the math on whether also taking on all the unemployment, crime and environmental issues would not make the profits negligible or even non-existent. You also need to see who already owns the mines, the laws on strategic assets and who is selling the technology to them for refining, extraction, transport, etc. along with export markets, foreign investment and JVs, etc. before you can say what effect resources have on any motivation to take sovereignty.

 

Mexico has around 6% unemployment, which means around 8% in real terms as we all know about govts and unemployment stats. Include those earning a subsistence less than that of your average "wetback" waitress in Arizona and you're going to be looking at about 10%. That' would mean the US would soak up about 10 million+ unemployed.

 

Then think about the migration patterns northward within 5 years, competition for work in the US would skyrocket and lower paid work in MX would go up by maybe 20% to try and find lower end labor. I can't see many US citz heading south to work in MX factories, mines and restaurants but I can see, including unemployed as well as those seeking better employment and better live altogether, around 20+ million moving north.

 

Then look at what will happen with the narco crime when borders are removed.

 

 

 

So, where are the advantages of unifying?

[lord_casek]

MX has zinc, silver, copper, gold and oil, sure. But why would you move in and end up imposing law and order which would result in labor laws, minimum wages, environmental regulations, anti-corruption and all the other things that will end up making it more expensive for you to use yourself. If you want to take over the industry to own the profits you do the math on whether also taking on all the unemployment, crime and environmental issues would not make the profits negligible or even non-existent. You also need to see who already owns the mines, the laws on strategic assets and who is selling the technology to them for refining, extraction, transport, etc. along with export markets, foreign investment and JVs, etc. before you can say what effect resources have on any motivation to take sovereignty.

 

Mexico has around 6% unemployment, which means around 8% in real terms as we all know about govts and unemployment stats. Include those earning a subsistence less than that of your average "wetback" waitress in Arizona and you're going to be looking at about 10%. That' would mean the US would soak up about 10 million+ unemployed.

 

Then think about the migration patterns northward within 5 years, competition for work in the US would skyrocket and lower paid work in MX would go up by maybe 20% to try and find lower end labor. I can't see many US citz heading south to work in MX factories, mines and restaurants but I can see, including unemployed as well as those seeking better employment and better live altogether, around 20+ million moving north.

 

Then look at what will happen with the narco crime when borders are removed.

 

 

 

So, where are the advantages of unifying?

 

 

Shit, look at the narco crime now. Mexican military supporting drug smuggling, retaking drugs from border patrol/local sheriff's, etc. Now they have several hundred miles in AZ that the fed has warned AZ citizens to stay out of b/c it's too dangerous.

 

 

Mexico

petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber

 

Source: CIA World Factbook

[christo-f]

That's right, imagine how quickly it would spread north if the border disappeared. Change Arizona is too dangerous for NY and LA are too dangerous.....

 

That problem would be the number 1 to fix before you wanted to integrate the two nations and I can tell you that it will be generations before we see any positive signs on that front.

 

We are not going to see the Amero in our lifetime and I still haven't seen a good reason why anyone would even consider the idea. What's the benefit????

[lord_casek]

That's right, imagine how quickly it would spread north if the border disappeared. Change Arizona is too dangerous for NY and LA are too dangerous.....

 

That problem would be the number 1 to fix before you wanted to integrate the two nations and I can tell you that it will be generations before we see any positive signs on that front.

 

We are not going to see the Amero in our lifetime and I still haven't seen a good reason why anyone would even consider the idea. What's the benefit????

 

 

No, but we see the SDR's in our lifetime. I think that may be the new world currency.

Someone more educated on such things should probably answer that, though.

 

Gerald Celente talks about it, but you can't see youtube.

[christo-f]

US controls WB

[lord_casek]

US controls WB

 

I don't think any country controls the IMF. We may have bigger stakes, but the bankers

are of their own clothe and most likely consider themselves "different".

[christo-f]

Yeah, sorry, IMF. And I think you can be assured that the US holds sway there.

[lord_casek]

Well, they do on paper. You're correct when you say WB, but I'm also correct saying IMF. IMF is part of the WB.

 

Like I said, I think these bankers are part of the great conspiracy. Mind you, I don't say conspiracy theory, but conspiracy.

 

This conspiracy is to level the playing field for all nations, as we (the US) were never supposed to be such a rich nation. The whole "free market" apparently ticks a lot of folks off.

 

I really don't know, though. I probably need to read some more so I can hold my own in such a discussion.

[heroin bob]

is it jus me?

or do you guys think,. the globalists/banksters, are being too blatant and arrogant ,. with their new world order?

[Zig]

Well, they do on paper. You're correct when you say WB, but I'm also correct saying IMF. IMF is part of the WB.

 

Like I said, I think these bankers are part of the great conspiracy. Mind you, I don't say conspiracy theory, but conspiracy.

 

This conspiracy is to level the playing field for all nations, as we (the US) were never supposed to be such a rich nation. The whole "free market" apparently ticks a lot of folks off.

 

I really don't know, though. I probably need to read some more so I can hold my own in such a discussion.

 

making good points...

 

World at Risk of Folding in on Itself: Deputy Doom

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38255206

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I've been looking for some kind of graph, or chart. Something, that indicates the amount of money the IMF has lent to a specific country at a given time, and how much better off or worse they were after the money was lent.

 

I am willing to do the research and look at this case by case, but I don't want to if unnecessary.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/lazarowitz8.1.1.html

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20028#

 

Some interesting reads.

[davidfrmtexas]

hhmmmmmmm, so biblical prophesy is coming to past........

[front line]

anybody down for the NWO needs a reality check. Look at my profile pic. Haha

[front line]

Very little that the UN has said should happen, is actually politically expedient for the member nations. The UN is very good at generating lofty ideals, but not historically very good at finding a way to implement them.

 

this guy thinks he's smart ha. Dude if you want this NWO, just go cut you dick off and shove it down your fuckin throat and die. Propin me like you know me. Bitch get a life you don't know shit about the NWO.

[christo-f]

Oh great, who let the school kids find out about Crossfire?

[lord_casek]

Oh great, who let the school kids find out about Crossfire?

 

 

I almost want to justify it with "at least they're interested in politics", but can't. At all.

 

No To Oligarchy

 

The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, some 22 percent of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps for their food.

 

And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.

Continues...

[front line]

I've never understood why they would unify Nth America. Why would anyone want to take on Mexico? It's in a long running narco-civil war, has massive unemployed and I'd say a large amount of unemployable. US demographics have already changed due to the amount of people coming from the south and a lot of people don't like it. Until employment levels in the US are down to something like 1.5% I can't see the US even dreaming about Mexico. Canada has raw materials like uranium, water, etc. I can see why that would be useful. But it also has COS and that has to be something seriously considered. No one wants that in their country.

 

then your a total fuckin retard. just think for about that for 3 seconds and i can come up with a hundred reasons why. no need to be propin me faggit you dont know shit.

[front line]

listen to someone who is dead for telling the truth. phil schneider youtube it. think what you want after, i really dont give a fuck.

[lord_casek]

then your a total fuckin retard. just think for about that for 3 seconds and i can come up with a hundred reasons why. no need to be propin me faggit you dont know shit.

 

 

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?"

[cunt sauce]

money came about as a means of a exchange.

 

let me illustrate.. barter only works on a small limited scale.

 

lets say its back in the good old 'peachy' days.

you have a chicken and you want a pickle. so you need to find a pickle owning chicken wanter.

what are the odds of this? imagine the entire world trying to accomplish similar trades? how prosperous do you think we would be?

the mistake of commies is that they think that prosperity and high living standards just appear out of thin air.

 

this is how money came about. a highly valuable commodity that can be exchanged for everything.

if you do away with currency and trade you will be living on a medieval/middle ages level of prosperity at BEST.

 

of course someone who praises communism and does not recognize that everyone is greedy and acts in their own self interest and this is human nature... surely does not understand trade or the origins of money.

 

I think what the guy was saying that an Economy based upon production is wrong. Economics originally meant management of one's home but its definition has been degraded to management of money.

 

The only way I can sustain my life is by producing something for someone else. Service or working with things that require modern technological knowledge is the growing trend of work and life in America and other developed, fully industrialized countries, while textile, farming and factory work is left to our less fortunate fellow humans.

 

The means to production are owned by an elite few and everyone has to serve them. I know what your thinking right now...

 

"This guy is typing all this to me from the comforts of his apartment on a computer made in Thailand by a wage slave all while wearing sweatshop clothing from Honduras and Sweatshop shoes from Indonesia. All of these commodities were shipped to him from overseas because of Petroleum, which would not be possible to posses unless we went to war with countries like Iraq or sent Freedom Fighter death squads to countries like Columbia."

 

But you see AOD (or any other potential haters), if I don't want to participate in the life that is our civilization, I will be wiped out. I will die. How long does it take to die of starvation, 60 days? I don't own any land! Furthermore Lets say I did own land, and I wanted to live like a nomadic hunter-gatherer type. I would not be able to sustain my life. There used to be so many passenger pigeons that flew over head that the sight of the sky would be near blotted out during migrations. They were exterminated by Commercial Hunting. Buffalo used to migrate in herds in the tens of thousands, but they were exterminated by the US Army in an act of genocide to destroy the Indigenous American land base. Salmon used to migrate for the great spawn in such a high population that the river ran silvery-pink not blue and now they are a critically threatened. You used to be able to drink water from streams and be a-okay, but now because of fertilizers, pesticides, synthetic and natural harmful chemicals, wastes from factory farms, just waste in general has rendered flowing water undrinkable in the name of Modern Economics. PRODUCTION. Even if I wanted to live a life pure to my morals I would in no way be able to, because It is impossible. And I think that's the most depressing thing, that the majority of human life is dependent on the very system that is exploiting them. How am I in any way a hypocrite in complaining about these cultural issues that face us, all of us and trying to promote awareness and possible solutions?

 

I think I need to stress that when I say "The means to production are owned by an elite few and everyone has to serve them." I am not talking about the Illuminati, New World Order or any other retarded shit like that. I am merely talking about the owners of production in our industrialized civilization. There isn't some mysterious, evil, secret organization perpetrating these injustices on the majority of humanity. Its in our history, Its in our media, its right in front of our faces and looking back at you in the mirror. Its your average transnational corporation and its the government that protects them, because production and money are more important than love, life and humanity in this culture. I don't hate these people doing this to the rest of humanity though, they are just manifestations of out ill-willed culture pitted towards dominion, greed and objectification. We see this everyday in television (MTV, political commentary), music (think mainstream rap and pop-rock), movies (think action and war films). Positive redeeming behavior is laughed at and ridiculed all the time, while negative behavior is approved of and even encouraged through a rewarding system called MONEY. Think about your average 12oz-er for a moment. The majority of the participants on this forum view women as commodities to be exploited, any feminine quality to a man "faggotry" and most believe that as long as it makes pieces of paper and metal (I'm talking "money" here) move around, acts of unsustainable violence towards the natural world is justifiable. Am I really the only human being on this website that finds this Psychotic??? Through reflection upon our arguments in the "Ron Paul", "AZ immigration" and "Eating Organic" and all of the reading I have been doing in my absence from this ever addicting graffiti website, I have realized that Politicians, Consumer Voting (Vote with your dollar campaign), Recycling, "Renewable" Energies, Redistributing wealth through taxes and pretty much any program to reform our despicable Culture will be fruitless because our culture is immoral, unsustainable, destructive and downright evil. Also, programs to reform may possibly promote the false illusion that one is actually "saving the world", you helped me realize this one angel of death... We need a revolution of culture, consciousness and perception of ourselves and the world around us.

 

Criticism of this post is invited by all and is highly encouraged. My close friends and I know I can be pretty impressionable when it comes to books, news, music and other forms of rhetoric so I would really, really appreciate the Opposing Viewpoint. If this offers a better perception of what I am thinking or where I am coming from, I have been reading a lot of Erich Fromm, Noam Chomsky, Derrick Jensen, Daniel Quinn and Vandana Shiva.

[cunt sauce]

 

of course someone who praises communism and does not recognize that everyone is greedy and acts in their own self interest and this is human nature... surely does not understand trade or the origins of money.

 

Forgot this... human nature? HA! only the nature of humans operating under this current culture of dominion of the world around us. History wasn't written until after humans settled and stopped their nomadic lifestyles. When one isn't living wild and they're sitting around waiting for crops to grow they have the opportunity to write. So much time went by this way the history-keeping people forgot that there was another way until they discovered indigenous tribes, who were deemed stupid savages, even though most indigenous cultures have some of the smartest people ever in terms of knowing how to really live like a Human. Think about it. Humans have been around for a couple million years and then 10 thousand years or so ago the evil culture, the current culture that acts in their "own greedy self interest", as you so wisely put it decided that we weren't going to live like real, wild humans anymore. We decided to live in control of other living things for our own self interest. And now look at what we are facing. The Population Growth Dilemma, Environmental Degradation, Economic Collapse (because it is a system based in expansion on a finite planet). All so we could have control of ourselves and the things around us. Not to sound condescending I am merely just trying to inform you of this, but did you know there are many indigenous cultures that have no words for what we call "Rape", "Suicide", and "Child Abuse" simply because these things did not happen in their culture? There is no reason to make a word for an act that doesn't exist.

 

btw not trying to pick on you AOD, you are just my favorite person to argue with.

[cunt sauce]

Researching the gift economy reminds me of something I read a little while ago on a book that was a compilation and analysis of a hundred or so years of anthropological research. It got into how loving, peaceful, non-destructive (life-affirming as they put it) cultures and societies tend to always have a distinct set of characteristics, such as no heavy emphasis on private property or ownership, no division of labor, no divide in social gender roles or equality, no coercion of children by parents that is so often seen in our culture, no strong anthropocentric (the concept that human beings may regard themselves as the central and most significant beings in the universe) values, and their warfare wasn't an objective to destroy every remaining opposing life that didn't accept their way of life. War certainly wasn't glamorized and frequently happening in the average persons life as it is in our current culture either. How many conflicts that required the military has the US been in during the past 200 years not to mention the whole worlds history of war? Never was war as widespread and deathly in these indigenous cultures either. The point of all this i guess is to try and learn from these peaceful cultures (that is if you are against widespread violence and injustice), and to also learn about past atrocities that occur in our culture. You cannot prevent future atrocities without learning from our past atrocities. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it right?

 

Another good point about owning no land. The plight of the proletariat is a point I often seem to have to bring up when dealing with AOD. Socialism was supposed to address this but it just seems to transfer all the landowners and bosses over to the government. Instead of people power having to contend with private AND public power its just public power.

 

Exactly. True communism would never place the means of production to sustain the lives of the mass of society in the hands of an elite few, the government. All revolutions failed in my mind because the leaders of the revolution were motivated by power over the people not power for the people. I think the only thing society can really hope for is a person or persons or group or widespread collection of informative groups like Jesus (as an activist, not the immaculately birthed son of god but a fighter against our civilization) to spread not only a human history lesson of our civilization, but also present that there is an alternative, happier communal, hell even tribal way of life that we could be living, and a means to leaving our civilization and go back towards our natural way of life living with nature, instead of above it, controlling every last bit of it. Live with the grain of the community of life not against it. I stress the Jesus thing because it needs to be led by someone who is not motivated by money or power. I think Jesus existed. All other mainstream religions recognize, even respect him. I just don't think he was the physical son of "god", I don't think (or at least I would like not to think) that he spread the promise of salvation, the after life. Because salvation was offered to the victims of our civilization in my eyes as away of rationalizing all of the injustices people face as a result of as our cruel culture of dominance. Why would a loving caring God let all these atrocities happen? Because this is just a build up to the next life, the good life, the AFTERLIFE. Complacency. Why rebel against the people holding me prisoner under this civilization when I have this great heaven to go to that has a set of rules against killing. It reminds me of my cannabis habit except substitute heaven for a bong rip.

 

I am by no means suggesting that Capitalism is the only evil political system. I think all political systems are fucked and no vote will ever result in the rescue of the human species. Its all on us little people. Revolutions come from the bottom up not top to bottom.

 

 

Hopefully the people band together for a gift economy or something of that nature.

 

Yeah, but spreading the word would deem you as being an arrogant, preachy, hipster that hangs out at free-trade coffee houses and sympathizes and identifies with community activism efforts and if there's anything this website has told me, or i guess the culture at large has told me, it is that being a hipster is bad. Almost as bad as being an illegal immigrant, faggot or nigger. Or even a woman. :eek:

[angelofdeath]

The only way I can sustain my life is by producing something for someone else. Service or working with things that require modern technological knowledge is the growing trend of work and life in America and other developed, fully industrialized countries, while textile, farming and factory work is left to our less fortunate fellow humans.

 

this is not true at all.

you do not have to sustain your life by working for someone else. the only reason you do, is because you want to achieve or maintain a certain living standard. if you wanted to live like a cave man like you are talking about further in your posts... you are free to do so. if you want to exchange and trade and barter, grow your own food and pull the plug on society, this is totally attainable. however if you want 2 cars, a nice house, AC, internet, etc. you have to in some way please the providers of these services. in todays age most people like federal reserve notes. in fact it is the law, you cannot use any other commodity as currency.

 

the reason why textile work and farming is worth less in the modern market is because the market has found ways to produce these things very cheaply and efficiently.

its sort of like the diamonds water paradox. why are diamonds worth so much but actually worth little to human life but water is worth so much to human life but is worth little is because of scarcity.

 

But you see AOD (or any other potential haters), if I don't want to participate in the life that is our civilization, I will be wiped out. I will die. How long does it take to die of starvation, 60 days?

 

check out the movie 'life on the mesa.' these guys do it.

 

see... this problem of not owning land and living like the unabomber could be fixed if we had privatized national forests and a sound private property theory. the govt forbids you from inhabiting their land in the rocky mountains for instance. but say you get dropped in by parachute. you begin to mix your labor with the uninhabited unclaimed land. you begin to farm it. forest it. nurture it. build a cabin. this land is yours. this is the way it should be. and the way it always HAS been.

 

Buffalo used to migrate in herds in the tens of thousands, but they were exterminated by the US Army in an act of genocide to destroy the Indigenous American land base.

 

only partly.

the reason the buffalo went extinct and the cow didnt is because of privatization. they are the same animal. because there is socialism in wild critters... you dont lost anything if you shoot one. the tragedy of the commons. you protect your cows because if you shoot one today, you dont have one tomorrow. and this is why the cow has NEVER been in danger of extinction, but the buffalo pretty much disappeared. and look who is bringing back the buffalo... private farmers.

 

You used to be able to drink water from streams and be a-okay, but now because of fertilizers, pesticides, synthetic and natural harmful chemicals, wastes from factory farms, just waste in general has rendered flowing water undrinkable in the name of Modern Economics. PRODUCTION.

 

not so.

the problem you are discussing here is because we have allowed a legal system to take place that does not respect private property rights. polluters are allowed immunity to a degree to pollute the property of others. if we had an actual free market/society, polluters would be held accountable for damaging others property. we now have acts like the price anderson act that limit the liability of nuclear waste facilities. for fucks sake the federal govt put a liability cap on BP...of 75 mil. (not to mention the permit was issued in 2009 by obama's interior and his govt said everything was hunky dory and no further safety measures were needed) in the 19th century the court system decided that environmental/nuisance cases were all bull shit and that in order to be #1 in the world industrially, everyone has to deal with pollution.

this is not private property and capitalism it is govt managed corporatism that has infringed on the rights of property owners to hold polluters accountable.

[angelofdeath]

The presumption that capitalists make that people are naturally greedy and self-interested reflects a sickness of society.

 

call it what you want... i'll call it the truth.

 

everything people do is in their own self interest. think about it. take off the chomsky class warfare cap for one second.

 

do you go to work out of your own self interest, to better your life or do you go to work out of benevolence. to volunteer to your employer? even giving to charity is in ones own self interest. why? because it makes the person giving 'feel good.'

 

do you get food from the exploitative whole foods market out of benevolence or do you get food from them because they are trying to increase their bottom line?

 

 

Capitalism rewards greed and creates this huge disparity.

 

 

what huge disparity?

the poor today live under better conditions than any poor in the history of the world. the 'poor' in america have 2 cars, cell phones, cable tv, air conditioning, a flat screen and throw away more food than their parents probably ATE only 30 years ago.

 

sure a rich person may have a mercedes but the poor person has a chevy or a honda. they get the job done. a rich person may eat filet mignon but the poor person can now afford steak as well. just a month ago i saw a person use an independence card for organic filets of beef, crab legs, shrimp and lobster. among other groceries... the bill came to 660$. she only had to pay 41$ out of pocket the rest was on the independence card. cmon.

would you rather be poor in america that has a relatively free society or in one of these famed hunter gatherer cultures in the rain forest of brazil?

 

A gift economy would be ideal. If all of our productivity was given for the greater good of society we would all have the highest standard of living possible.

 

how would a gift economy be ideal?

its absurd.

money is simply the most efficient way to transfer goods. i addressed this with my 'pickle owning chicken wanter' analogy. without a currency, you will have a super small caveman style society.

 

the great classical and austrian economists all agreed that only a barter society can exist on a small scale.

if we resort to a gift economy the collapse of society to a 'the road' like setting would be the result.

 

we havent had capitalism in america, we have had corporate fascism driving by ideological socialism. you cant call it capitalism. we have had mixed economy. veneer of private property rights and exchange with ultimate govt control.

 

productivity IS given for the 'greater good' of society. as i pointed out before... would you rather be poor in a third world hunter gatherer society or in the US? when microsoft sells a computer cheap and they make lots of money doing so, they benefit the poor the most for being able to get a cheap computer. what if we still had computers that cost 7K and took up the size of your living room? what made them cheaper and to where the poor can afford them? a fairly free market and competition. and because microsoft sought their own 'greedy self interest' everyone benefits. people on welfare now have computers with the internet and get to look at porn all day just like the rest of us 'greedy' 'rich' middle class douche bags that hold private property and stuff money in our mattresses.

[angelofdeath]

Yeah, but spreading the word would deem you as being an arrogant, preachy, hipster that hangs out at free-trade coffee houses and sympathizes and identifies with community activism efforts ...

 

i have yet to find anyone that holds your beliefs that is not a preachy hipster. haha.

just saying.

 

you are not arrogant or not even that preachy... but most seem to be hipsters.

[christo-f]

but say you get dropped in by parachute. you begin to mix your labor with the uninhabited unclaimed land. you begin to farm it. forest it. nurture it. build a cabin. this land is yours. this is the way it should be. and the way it always HAS been.

 

How do we, as a society then protect unique wilderness, endangered species or even retain some uninhabited land safe from development (that isn't the shitty non-arable wastelands)?

 

if we had an actual free market/society, polluters would be held accountable for damaging others property.

 

How?

[angelofdeath]

the foodies ultimate capitalist libertarian christian guru, joel salatin of polyface farms, who holds the exact opposite view of the foodies on where the problems come from... details accurately in his book 'everything i want to do is illegal' that wilderness areas as we know them never existed.

indians, buffalo, etc all were disturbing the landscape. buffalo herds would come through valleys in the east and trample everything. indians used controlled burning to manage their forests.

the wilderness area's that the greenies support are places that are not 'natural' by any means. he replicates the disturbances on his farm. and the hippies love him for it. yet this guy is a greedy capitalist and sells food for profit and doesnt apologize to you about it. he is a greedy land owner and takes perfectly good care of his farm. he is a steward not a greeny enviro geek.

 

endangered species are best protected when privatized. this example makes it totally clear. in africa where they have/had socialized elephant herds, they were all slaughtered for ivory. in countries in africa where the villages owned the herds they protected them. they have hunts where they charge people. the elephants are protected. they are over run with elephants. they steward the herds. the same is true of the common beef cattle and the buffalo.

look at north and south korea. controlled economy vs a less controlled economy. east germany and west germany same thing.

if you want to kill an endangered species, the best thing to do is allow govt to control it.

not to mention... how 'natural' are 'endangered species' anyway? if a primitive environment is so ideal, humane and protects the endangered species and environment, why dont we have the do-do bird and the saber tooth tiger? why dont we have dinosaurs? species die off ALL the time. this is a natural phenomenon.

look at the incentive we have with the current endangered species laws... if you see an endangered owl on your farm... the incentive they created is for you to use the rural 3 s's. shoot. shovel. shut up. because if word gets out that you have an endangered species on your farm... they take the damn farm!

 

the easiest way to protect property is to buy it. if all the people who wanted to save forest lands, go hiking and look at mountains put their money where their mouths are... organizations could easily purchase these lands, enforce private property rights and steward the land 10000 times better than govt. of course the rich liberals would have to sell their bmw's and their 8000 sq ft un economically efficient non global warming prevention friendly houses and downsize in order to protect what they want to protect. (dont bet on this happening) not to mention... why should city dwellers, non hikers, and non outdoorsy types have to pay for the people who want to look at trees and hike?

 

proper logging management as used by property owners around the country could bring in huge revenue for the owners of these forests for example. and not only that... it would stop all the wildfires out west caused by a stupid ideology that forbids proper stewarding of the forests and removing dead wood. and since the share holders interest is to protect a huge tract of land... clear cutting and other obvious retorts you would come back with would not be allowed to happen.

 

but even though soviet russia and the communist system was an economic basket case... atleast their environment should be good, right? profit seeking was outlawed for decades in these areas. govt set all the regulation to create heaven on earth. they had good environments, rights?

not so.

the govt track record on the environment is horrible.

lakes and seas so polluted you couldnt smoke on them because if you threw a cigarette onto the water it would burst into flames. forests turned into desert. soil so polluted with chemical fertilizer that nothing would grow. floating islands of untreated sewage a mile long and 3 miles wide in lake baikal. dangerously polluted air, sink holes the size of football stadiums by over mining in coal regions. because all these resources belonged to no one, they were exploited. look at the incentives. the deforestation was caused mainly by people chopping down as many trees as possible before the next guy would get them so as not to be without sufficient wood for the russian winters.

 

pursuit of profit is is perfectly sound with conservation in a regime of private property and proper liability law. but the enviro movement is not made of up conservationists like myself or people like ted nugent or the great joel salatin. who would devote time and money to improving fish and wildlife, use land healing and proper stewarding methods on forests, and cleaning up wild areas. rather, the environmental movement which is composed of intellectuals, think tank policy wonks, gov bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists and others, try to use politics to block the production of goods and services, tell other people how to manage their land and in the end institute policies that ultimately are harmful to the environment.

[christo-f]

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with your position and it's not really something that is overly important to me. I find what you say interesting and ask the questions that I see apparent in what is written.

 

 

the foodies ultimate capitalist libertarian christian guru, joel salatin of polyface farms, who holds the exact opposite view of the foodies on where the problems come from... details accurately in his book 'everything i want to do is illegal' that wilderness areas as we know them never existed.

indians, buffalo, etc all were disturbing the landscape. buffalo herds would come through valleys in the east and trample everything. indians used controlled burning to manage their forests.

the wilderness area's that the greenies support are places that are not 'natural' by any means. he replicates the disturbances on his farm. and the hippies love him for it. yet this guy is a greedy capitalist and sells food for profit and doesnt apologize to you about it. he is a greedy land owner and takes perfectly good care of his farm. he is a steward not a greeny enviro geek.

 

Well that all depends on where you live, remember the wold is not only the USA. The Australian aboriginies used to fire the land as well but they didn't inhabit the whole country either. I hear nothing of this in Asian indigenous populations nor Amazonian, for instance. Not saying it never happened, just that I've never seen any reference to it.

 

Now, on Australian national parks they sure as hell get fire every year, as I'm sure you see on the news. What lightening doesn't do people flicking cigarette butts out of cars or pyromaniacs take good care of. Good chance these areas are living a very natural existence apart from development.

 

endangered species are best protected when privatized. this example makes it totally clear. in africa where they have/had socialized elephant herds, they were all slaughtered for ivory. in countries in africa where the villages owned the herds they protected them. they have hunts where they charge people. the elephants are protected. they are over run with elephants. they steward the herds. the same is true of the common beef cattle and the buffalo.

 

Whilst that sounds like a working example that by no means closes the argument as I can point to countless examples where Australian state parks have taken endangered species back to natural level of habitation all the on the public purse.

 

 

i also don't know how you can say that it is the best example. You are comparing (nameless) countries that have a massive amount of weapons due to civil war, massive poverty, massive corruption, weak state, low education, etc. etc. to the world's most developed nation. There are so many differences here that I cannot, at all see how this is a workable comparison let alone a best example of something.

 

look at north and south korea. controlled economy vs a less controlled economy. east germany and west germany same thing.

 

Now I'm not saying you are being deliberately misleading here but you have just made completely illegitimate examples. Especially the example of DPRK, I actually trust that you don't believe their centrally controlled economy is an actual economic model rather than a mode of social and political control in order to support regime stability and continuity. Much the same when it came to the spread of Soviet influence. Whilst Lenin may have believed in the economic ideals of the state I don't think I need to go through the history lesson in how the Soviet empire was more a political empire than an economic ideology.

 

 

if you want to kill an endangered species, the best thing to do is allow govt to control it.

not to mention... how 'natural' are 'endangered species' anyway? if a primitive environment is so ideal, humane and protects the endangered species and environment, why dont we have the do-do bird and the saber tooth tiger? why dont we have dinosaurs? species die off ALL the time. this is a natural phenomenon.

 

Apart from the first line, for as I said before I can also point to thousands of state progs that have protected many endangered species, I agree with that. Who's to say what the natural way of things is. But also keep in mind, I'm no romantic primitivist, I'm just looking at your position and asking questions.

 

 

look at the incentive we have with the current endangered species laws... if you see an endangered owl on your farm... the incentive they created is for you to use the rural 3 s's. shoot. shovel. shut up. because if word gets out that you have an endangered species on your farm... they take the damn farm!

 

the easiest way to protect property is to buy it. if all the people who wanted to save forest lands, go hiking and look at mountains put their money where their mouths are They do, they're called taxes and national park entrance fees. ... organizations could easily purchase these lands, enforce private property rights and steward the land 10000 times better than govt. Australia seems to protect their Nat. Parks just fine. of course the rich liberals would have to sell their bmw's and their 8000 sq ft un economically efficient non global warming prevention friendly houses and downsize in order to protect what they want to protect. (dont bet on this happening) not to mention... why should city dwellers, non hikers, and non outdoorsy types have to pay for the people who want to look at trees and hike?

 

National Parks in Australia charge all users a fee that covers a lot of their operations. Australian national parks also are a decent element of tourism in Australia and that money (theoretically) goes back in to public spending when the foreign money comes in. IT also means that massive amounts of private industry (from airlines to busses, to hotels, taxis, whatever else) not only make money but also support employment. These are all benefits that the private industry gains because of nationally protected areas in Australia (like the great barrier reef, Kakadu, Blue Mountians, etc.). Take that away and only have private property and you run the risk that a decent amount of this industry will shut down as I don't think there are many entities that could afford the Great Barrier Reef, the Rockies, Kakadu, etc.

 

Secondly, what's to say that industry, who have more money than small groups of concerned individuals, would not take up that land and develop it for industrial usage instead? Are you sure that it is a good idea to have the potential to lose most of the wilderness areas we have (not that it would probably happen, but the risk is definitely there)?

 

proper logging management as used by property owners around the country could bring in huge revenue for the owners of these forests for example. and not only that... it would stop all the wildfires out west caused by a stupid ideology that forbids proper stewarding of the forests and removing dead wood. and since the share holders interest is to protect a huge tract of land... clear cutting and other obvious retorts you would come back with would not be allowed to happen.

 

So then how do you explain the clear felling that goes on in private industry all over the world now? You seem to think that free market equals sensible business decisions and sustainability over short term profit simply by being a free market. I'm not sure that your highly optimistic or faithful approach toward a free market would be so flawless in reality.

 

 

but even though soviet russia and the communist system was an economic basket case... atleast their environment should be good, right? profit seeking was outlawed for decades in these areas. govt set all the regulation to create heaven on earth. they had good environments, rights?

not so.

 

Once again, I think you are misinterpreting what the Soviet Union actually was. Don't get me wrong, I am the last person to champion a strong central state. However you are building a straw man here by seeing the Soviet Union as an economic entity rather than a political one. As China and most other Marxist/Leninist/Maoist countries, the economic ideology was a veneer and power/politics was always the priority. So whilst the reality may have been the same if the economic ideology was actually genuine the example yo are using now is incredible based on what actually took place in the Soviet Union. They didn't give a shit about anything else other than expanding power, I mean shit, how many holes can you poke in what they did through the prism of Marxism?! Let's be honest here.

 

 

the govt track record on the environment is horrible.

lakes and seas so polluted you couldnt smoke on them because if you threw a cigarette onto the water it would burst into flames. forests turned into desert. soil so polluted with chemical fertilizer that nothing would grow. floating islands of untreated sewage a mile long and 3 miles wide in lake baikal. dangerously polluted air, sink holes the size of football stadiums by over mining in coal regions. because all these resources belonged to no one, they were exploited. look at the incentives. the deforestation was caused mainly by people chopping down as many trees as possible before the next guy would get them so as not to be without sufficient wood for the russian winters.

 

pursuit of profit is is perfectly sound with conservation in a regime of private property and proper liability law. but the enviro movement is not made of up conservationists like myself or people like ted nugent or the great joel salatin. who would devote time and money to improving fish and wildlife, use land healing and proper stewarding methods on forests, and cleaning up wild areas. rather, the environmental movement which is composed of intellectuals, think tank policy wonks, gov bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists and others, try to use politics to block the production of goods and services, tell other people how to manage their land and in the end institute policies that ultimately are harmful to the environment.

 

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.

 

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. 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.

 

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.