Posted on 07/03/2002 1:18:24 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Several weeks ago the ACT Legislative Assembly endorsed the latest brainchild of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development — the Earth Charter — and decided to adopt it as a framework of principles for governing.
Although the charter’s web site says it is an “authoritative synthesis of values, principles and aspirations that are widely shared by growing numbers in all regions of the world”, and the principles in it “reflect extensive international consultations conducted over a period of many years”, the Assembly’s decision to endorse it is one of the most irrational in Australian political history.
A fact fundamental to sustainable development — one that everyone can agree on and that is not new — is that current stocks of physical resources are limited. In fact, humans have recognised the existence of scarcity for a long time, and modern market institutions evolved to peacefully address the issue of resource sustainability both within and between generations. Indeed, the very purpose of having markets is that they solve the resource-allocation problem: they shift finite resources away from individuals who place a low value on them, to individuals who place a higher value on them, in a voluntary, mutually beneficial fashion, without resources being wasted.
There is no guarantee that market allocations of finite resources will eliminate the jealousy and envy of certain individuals — also known in UN circles as “social justice”, “equity” or “fairness” — but in a complex world where billions of economic decisions are made every day, the ability of markets to solve the vast majority of resource-allocation problems is unquestioned: there are simply no other mechanisms known to humans that can perform this function at all, let alone as successfully as markets actually do.
Western civilisation in general — and Australia in particular — has prospered and continues to do so thanks to these institutions. But of course markets do not and cannot work without well-defined, well-enforced private property rights or without the rule of law. Thus, the primary role of government in a free society — and what should also be the primary goal of the ACT Government — is to perform these functions.
The “authoritative” Earth Charter, however, rejects the role of markets in allocating resources, rejects the role of private property rights, and rejects the concept of rule of law. These institutions are vital for human civilisations to flourish and have brought us untold freedom and prosperity, but there is no discussion of these terms in the charter. In fact, they are not even mentioned — so how can the principles of the charter be used as a guide for good governance?
The charter fails to recognise the fundamental law of economics: all economic activities are costly, in some way or another. Instead, the charter simply emphasises the bald-faced lie that it is possible to design a costless world where there are no trade-offs between economic benefits and resource depletion. Thus, the charter seeks to prevent pollution of any part of the environment, and to allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic or other hazardous substances, irrespective of the possibly enormous offsetting economic and social benefits that accompany these costs.
And, it continues, because the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the “needs” of future generations (ignore for now the fact that these future needs are simply unknown and unknowable), we are to “take action” to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive, and place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm.
Never mind the fact that future generations will be far wealthier than the current generation; never mind the fact that scientific knowledge is almost always incomplete and inconclusive; and never mind the fact that “need” has never been the basis of rights in any successful human society.
Other contradictions in the charter are simply breathtaking. The charter seeks to “empower” every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, ensure universal access to health care, to “guarantee” (how?) the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources “as required”.
According to the UN, in a world of finite resources it is possible to meet potentially unlimited demands for education, medical treatment and other human desires without requiring that the producers of those services receive other resources in voluntary exchanges.
Thus, the charter concludes that meeting these needs is simply a matter of choice, requiring no compensation for producers. It is simply enough for the charter to assert that humans have the “right” to these resources — never mind that in a free society a right that impinges on the rights of others is not a right at all, and never mind the fact that private property rights — the backbone of free modern societies — require voluntary agreements and mutual benefits for transfers to occur in the first place.
Indeed, the charter avoids all discussion of private property rights, and has apparently found a solution to the resource-allocation problem: we are to adopt “lifestyles” that do not “emphasise” material goods, as if living without material goods is just a matter of changing individual preferences.
Finally, as if all this were not enough for the charter to be consigned to the dustbin of history, we have the other assertions in the charter which are simply nonsensical and immoral: it takes the repugnant view that every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings. Thus, even life forms that are harmful and potentially devastating to the entire human race, such as the AIDS virus and the black plague, are worthy of preservation, and are placed on the same moral plane as human beings.
Although these criticisms are accurate, they lack the originating background research to be an authoritative critique.
First, the Earth Charter is largely the product of two socialists: Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev. It hardly represents a true consultative product. (If I recall correctly, the long time administrator of the project was Winthrop Rockefeller). Second, its principles almost entirely reflect the tenets of deep ecology, originally developed by Arne Naess and George Sessions (deep ecologists are the progenitors of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement). With Mr. Strong's interest in population control this is no surprise.
Use of environmentalism to exterminate opponents and consolidate power is hardly new. It is, after all, how Lenin murdered 22 million Kulaks and Ukranians with his land use planning philosophy published in 1918:On Land. His was a "scientific land-use planning system" that is entirely analogous to the Wildlands Project out of the Sierra Club and Earth First!. Given Dave Foreman's psychopathic history of advocating acts of sabotage, attempted murder, and human mutilation in "eco-defense" of the environment, it is no surprise he is a principle advocate of this plan.
Negatory on that!! I don't agree. Author should read Julian Simon's "Hoodwinking the Nation" or Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist." If resources were limited, prices would be going through the roof. They are not!
After that early statement, entire article went about 180 degrees off course.
This is a real trademark of liberalism. They envision an economic system (or lack of) that can only exist in fantasy land.
This is, they want us to be equally worthless impoverished livestock. The U.N. wants to have a world where the top echelons of the U.N. live in luxury while the other 99% live like middle eastern muslim dogs. It's be the Communist Party under a different name. Screw the U.N. and their totalitarian garbage!
If you don't really give a crap, because You are too busy with your little life, listen to pappa bushs' own words about the UN, and take a look at the future your children won't have.
On February 1, 1992, president george herbert walker bush stated:
" My vision of a New World Order forsees the UN with a revitalized peacekeeping function. It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN charter to which we henceforth pledge our allegiance."
Please tell me one place where the UN has kept PEACE.
I'm sure you can name many places that the UN has installed puppet governments to support the elites agenda, but I don't think You can name one where they have kept or promoted PEACE.
As a matter of fact Korea and Vietnam which were called "Limited Conflicts" ( a CFR concoction) were brought about "to prove" that "we" needed the UN, because "we" don't know how to live in Peace.
Well, B S !!!!
Did You know that Rockefeller worked out a trade deal with Krushev and after having johnson sign it, he began selling the material needed to make weapons to Russia, which were in turn sold to North Vietnam and used to kill over 58,000 American's ?
The UN is a tool the elites created to help achieve world rule.
That's all.
The only Peace involved with the UN, is the next Piece of the world the elites will get to rule.
The UN charter, which pappa bush sees as sacred was written by Alger Hiss, known Russian spy and CFR member.
And as far as baby bush having a Christian bone in his body, if it were true, ABORTION wouldn't exist anymore.
He has continued Roosevelt's "Emergency Powers Act" keeping the power of dictator going for the president. He has continued to write executive orders, that makes America a police state. And he continues to allow 3/4 born babies to be murdered, under the guise of a "woman's right".
I don't know about You, but I don't see Christ in there anywhere.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Hitler said "Tell the people a lie, long enough and they will believe it."
The UN is one of those lies.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.