foodgardenkitchen, In regards to the comment you shared about the previous expanded reply, I would like to say "Thanks for your two cents." If everyone gave their two cents worth, we could make change.
I agree with you about the Homeowners Associations. I also agree with you that "wholesale shifts take time". That is exactly why the United Nations started the push for sustainable development way back in 1992. Look at where it has come to today.
As far as "...then they embrace zoning and the ability local governments have over land uses...", that won't even come into play with sustainable development. There will not be any private property left after sustainable development is fully implemented. That is part of the UN's Agenda 21 Protocol.
In an effort to further exemplify what is taking place city by city, please read the following:
"In Denver, Colorado during a 2009 climate change rally a NOAA scientist spoke advocating the shutdown of American growth and reducing population while lowering the standard of living per capita of US families in line with the more meager standards of living shared by our third world country neighbors as being a justifiable way of attaining “Sustainable Development”.
"The Agenda 21 strategy is direct and to the point concerning its ultimate goals.
1) The establishment of agencies, on international, nationwide, and local levels to enforce the UN directives implementing a world order with its own objectives.
2) The disillusion [sic] of all rights among citizens by their nation states according to their individual constitutions, including the United States. The end of unalienable rights.
3) Population reduction by a number of means including abortion.
4) Abolishment of all property rights-no more private property ownership.
5) Ending consumerism and free enterprise.
6) Industries not seen as sustainable are dairy, meat production, farmland, grazing land for cattle, golf courses, ski lodges, fossil fuel energy, paved roads, commercial agriculture, and irrigation."
Published public information in Texas goes on further to state:
"Dallas A ICLEI City? Why?
The International Council Of Local Environmental Initiatives has some 600 United States cities among its membership. In 1994 the ICLEI made a bid to pass the Biological Diversity Treaty which was withdrawn from the United Nations floor. Although this push for the UN control of cities seemed defeated, it was instead implemented under a new label, “Local Governments For Sustainability”.
Now many major cities such as Dallas and Plano, Texas are the unwitting partners in a scheme of globalism to remit the unmitigated control of citizen populations beneath the deceptive veneer of the United Nations. What many have embraced as seemingly innocent environmental preservation is, in fact, the Agenda 21 protocol.
The Agenda 21 proposals would hand over the rights of all citizens of world nations to an elitist group of United Nation oriented international bankers, billionaires, corrupted politicians, media moguls, and military leaders. All of these participating members under the Aegis of the UN and its environmental objectives have put together an alarming playbook of plans that when reviewed define a body of reprehensible collectivism.
Collectivism is a totalitarian form of governing we have already seen among many dictatorships and fascists throughout history who rationalize that the best interests of a group out weight [sic] the rights of a few."
"Education in schools [sic] systems will no longer be based upon objective reality, but upon a consensus or agreement on issues supported by government opinion. In a statement derived from Agenda 21 “those adults who have better education earn more money and as a result consume more. Therefore, higher education must be seen as detrimental to the Sustainable Development protocol.
I think it is clear that Dallas, Plano, and, for that matter, all US cities need to resist these abominable concepts that will lead to the end of freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all American citizens while opening the floodgates to a new world order (NWO). There are many politicians in the US now supporting the Agenda 21 proposals, and they must be stopped. Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado is a supporter of this agenda for example. We have educational board members of the Dallas Junior Colleges who are supporters. It is time to act before it’s too late."
Continue reading on Examiner.com DALLAS, TEXAS UNDER UN CONTROL: HOW? - Dallas TEA Party | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/tea-party-in-dallas/dallas-texas-under-un-control-how#ixzz1TSQbSER0
Thanks for sharing your comment on my blog post that addresses this critical issue.
Have a wonderful free day!
Veggie PAK
Has everyone been reading "Atlas Shrugged" lately and getting riled up about objectivism and collectivism? Probably not because it's a rather long, tedious novel so most people read some Cliff's Notes version or glean something off the internet and run with it. I sometimes wonder if people who seem to staunchly subscribe to Ayn Rand's objectivism philosophy ever extrapolate out what the likely result(s) of actually fully implementing said philosophy would be. In my extrapolation, it wouldn't be pretty and it probably wouldn't be the happy outcome some people think it would be as the economic condition between the haves and the have-nots would ultimately lead to the end of civilzation as we know it. (Explantion of how that would occur is too long to post here).
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I believe that everything in life is a balance, including human (and all other species) population. It seems intuitive to me that the Earth has a carrying capacity and that technological advancements cannot infinitely increase the carrying capacity, but can merely extend it only so far. I also believe that if everyone on Earth lived as we in America now do, we'd all be in trouble. So that leads me to the thought that the current American way of life is unsustainable. I don't think that making changes in the way we live leads to some communist state. To continue as we have been is basically saying that we'll piss on the rest of the world and they all need to continue to have a lower standard of living than us.
But of course, it's complicated. Because I also think that selfishness and greed are basic human instincts (this is one of the reasons we must train children to become civilized and do things like not hit the child with the toy they covet and take it away). So it's also valid to argue that the hufe human populations in China and India are operating only in their self-interests as they attempt to raise their standards of living to either (or both) the detriment of Americans' standard of living and the long-term viability of human population on Earth.
I certainly don't have all of the answers (and no one else does either because of all the competing philosophies), but I'm not willing to piss on the rest of the world's population just so I can drive some SUV that gets 8 mpg while some guy in some other part of the world is riding a donkey. The conversation is complicated and it's unlikely to be solved because we will never all agree on some basic philosophies. It kind of goes against human nature of selfishness.
Just 2 more cents :)
foodgardenkitchen,I agree with you that the conversation is complicated. I too, don't think that we as a people, effecting changes in the way we live would lead to some communist state. The point is that the government's view of what is good and right for the earth is different than what the people's view of good and right is for the earth.
ReplyDeleteAll the actions of federal, state and local governments are well documented and openly push toward the goal of sustainable development. There is no gray area for misinterpretation there.
The government by design has made this a "nation of consumers" as evidenced by "The Story of Stuff" which can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM
We have consumed vast amounts of resources to the detriment of mother earth, and most of it is turned right around and goes to landfills as waste or is incinerated poisoning the air we breathe. However, I don't think that it's too late to turn this around and redirect the policies that have been implemented into sustainable freedom initiatives. Sustainable freedom is a long-lasting, viable solution. A sustainable development dictatorship as the world governments would have it will get us right back to where we are now in just a few decades down the road. The PEOPLE need to make the decision for sustainable freedom and go forward with it on an individual basis. Not have it imposed on us by politicians.
We each need to ask ourselves what we are doing this very day to help the goal of saving the earth through using sustainable freedom. Then we need to step up the pace of whatever we are doing.
In closing, I would simply like to restate my opinion that the most important point I am calling attention to is the trajectory toward even broader overregulation by a government that is ineffective in managing its current responsibilities.
Thank you for your in-depth comments. It's my hope that more and more people will ponder the issue of sustainability as you have. Hopefully they will seek out how they can give it a shot in the arm by their active participation in it.
Have a wonderful vegetable gardening day!
Veggie PAK