A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

[Carol246]

How did I miss this? Bob Heisler posted information on Rosa Koire discussing U.N. Agenda 21 the other day. Shocking. One of the manifestations of 20-year old conspiracy theories "plans," yet here it is, trying to happen in our neighborhood. The coolest thing is that this amazing woman, Rose Koire, LIVES IN SANTA ROSA! I began listening to Art Bell in 1992 (coast to coast am) and Jeff Rense (rense.com) 20 years ago. ANYbody can get on those shows, talking about ANYthing going on, even ex CIA agents who wrote books. So much can be learned about the schenanigans perpetrated by the creepy-greedy people of low character. Alex Jones is another telling the truth on radio and Youtube. The Old Guard is beginning to break apart, and Occupy is accellerating it. These radio hosts say "The Revolution is us."

We ALL should massivly organize and MAKE Ron Paul get elected president. The Boomers have the power to do that, working with everybody else of right motivation.

ROSA KOIRE: Author and Activist, "Behind the …-

DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 - OK, So what is Agenda 21 ...

The Post Sustainability Institute - Our Mission

[ubaru]

How did I miss this? Bob Heisler posted information on Rosa Koire discussing U.N. Agenda 21 the other day. Shocking. One of the manifestations of 20-year old conspiracy theories "plans," yet here it is, trying to happen in our neighborhood. The coolest thing is that this amazing woman, Rose Koire, LIVES IN SANTA ROSA! I began listening to Art Bell in 1992 (coast to coast am) and Jeff Rense (rense.com) 20 years ago. ANYbody can get on those shows, talking about ANYthing going on, even ex CIA agents who wrote books. So much can be learned about the schenanigans perpetrated by the creepy-greedy people of low character. Alex Jones is another telling the truth on radio and Youtube. The Old Guard is beginning to break apart, and Occupy is accellerating it. These radio hosts say "The Revolution is us."

We ALL should massivly organize and MAKE Ron Paul get elected president. The Boomers have the power to do that, working with everybody else of right motivation.

ROSA KOIRE: Author and Activist, "Behind the …-

DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 - OK, So what is Agenda 21 ...

The Post Sustainability Institute - Our Mission

Here's the thread Bob and I wrote that Carol is referring to.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?86902-Santa-Rosa-City-Council-and-U.N.-Agenda-21&p=146649#top

UN agenda 21 and it's LOCAL arm ICLEI is pretty insidious. Even the Occupy Town Hall Meetings are being sponsored by the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, an ICLEI group with a nice name and a nefarious agenda. I heard Rosa mention it in one of the videos of the recent One Bay Area Santa Rosa meetings shown on her site.





The only way Ron Paul could make it past the rigged voting machines is if two things happened. Most importantly, that the counting was successfully audited. And secondly if he won by a landslide; make it obvious. He's probably already winning and an audit of each state's primary would reveal that. Anyone's main motivation for voting for him? To head off the fascist police state that is well underway and becoming more obvious by the day. Who cares about political wedge issues in the face of this?

Liz

["Mad" Miles]

"...Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, an ICLEA group with a nice name and a nefarious agenda."

Would you care to substantiate your slander Ubaru?

[CyberHippy]

"...Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, an ICLEA group with a nice name and a nefarious agenda."

Would you care to substantiate your slander Ubaru?

Yeah, if you're going to push a conspiracy theory, it helps to get the spelling correct: https://www.iclei.org/

ICLEA is the Illinois Campus Law Enforcement Adminstrators: https://www.iclea.org

[ubaru]

Ok Mad Miles and CyberHippy,

Chill out with your knee jerk reactions and do your homework before attacking me. You didn't check out that link did you? You just shot from the hip.

Rosa Koire reported that the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy is an ICLEI group in the video I watched. ICLEI is the correct acronym. You can read about it here, and at the link I provided above. If you do your homework, and you don't like the corporate elite controlling us, you will probably agree this is something to become aware of now, and kick out of our communities because a lot of rural Sonoma County and eventually all of us are screwed by their policies. I have a friend up in rural Sonoma county who does not agree with me on Ron Paul but is very up on UN Agenda 21, ICLEI, and how it's trodding all over his property rights, decreasing his property value because the new policy is to not maintain 1,200 miles of road, and highjacking his property taxes. Does this raise an eyebrow for you?

From her website:
What does ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY) stand for? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It was created as a non-governmental spin-off by the United Nations to implement Agenda 21 locally. It is a lobbying and policy group that is designed to influence and change local governmental policies related to all aspects of human life.

Barry, I see you've given CyberHippy gratitude and I can imagine that it would be pretty provoking and unsettling to consider that you've sold advertising to such an organization or partnered with them in sponsoring the Occupy Town Hall. Check out the data. Maybe it's time to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Meanwhile guys, be respectful, keep an open mind, and do your research.

Liz

["Mad" Miles]

Uburu,

The Leadership Institute for the Ecology and Economy is a Liberal training institute for local leaders, or prospective ones. Some of whom may go into public service, or at least try by running for office.

It is well respected and has been around for twelve years. At least that's how long I've known about it/them.
I know someone who was the Director from 2001-2004 or so (I don't have the exact years down, that's ballpark from memory.) It was founded by Rick Theis and others.

It is the Liberal, Environmentalist corollary to the Santa Rosa Leadership Institute, which is the mainstream establishment organization that does the same but from a conventional business perspective. When I worked at the Red Cross '89-'00 as the Executive Assistant to the CEO and Board Secretary (Chief Gofer) many board members had gone through the mainstream training.

The Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy focuses on Social Justice, Labor, Environmental and Economic Sustainability issues and how to integrate them into governmental, non-profit and community grassroots organizations and institutions.

I don't care what some conspiracy mongering wingnut has to say in linking them to some One World Government scheme, that's ludicrous. You're the one casting aspersions on respected members of and organizations in our community. Our Progressive community. An organization and hard working well meaning group of individuals who long precede you in efforts to improve our county and region.

If you're going to sling mud, you better back it up with facts. And you better have better facts than fringe, unsubstantiated foolishness (I'm pulling my punches here for the sake of civility in Waccovia, if I wrote what I really think of that stuff, and much else you spam this site with daily, well, what would be the point, it's already pretty clear to anyone with a modicum of common knowledge about science, history, politics and economics what any of it is worth.)

I've ignored, for the most part, with the exception of providing resources for those willing to learn, the garbage you constantly regurgitate here. But, when you accuse good people of being in league with, "The Devil", you've crossed over the bounds of acceptability. And you will get an eyeful from me, let the chips fall where they may.

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Ubaru, You're the one who has not done her homework. Something you demonstrate on a daily basis. Try reading the critics of your critics once in a while. You might actually learn something new.

https://ecoleader.org/drupal/resources

[rossmen]

this is a conspiracy like public education, training participants to stay seated, do the meaningless work, and space out. there is no hidden agenda in onebayarea plans. what are they for santa rosa? from 101 to fulton, from hwy 12 to two blocks south of sebastopol rd, 40+ residential units/acre and 40+ jobs too. this is comparable to the most densely developed parts of sf. preferred development area stack em and pack em. i guess roseland didn't have any reps at the first meeting.

what are they for where you live? are they even likely to manifest? does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends? don't shoot the messenger on this one, these are issues very close to home.

Ok Mad Miles and CyberHippy,

Chill out with your knee jerk reactions and do your homework before attacking me. You didn't check out that link did you? You just shot from the hip.

Rosa Koire reported that the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy is an ICLEA group in the video I watched. ICLEA is the correct acronym. You can read about it here, and at the link I provided above. If you do your homework, and you don't like the corporate elite controlling us, you will probably agree this is something to become aware of now, and kick out of our communities because a lot of rural Sonoma County and eventually all of us are screwed by their policies. I have a friend up in rural Sonoma county who does not agree with me on Ron Paul but is very up on UN Agenda 21, ICLEA, and how it's trodding all over his property rights, decreasing his property value, and highjacking his property taxes. Does this raise an eyebrow for you?

From her website:
What does ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY) stand for? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It was created as a non-governmental spin-off by the United Nations to implement Agenda 21 locally. It is a lobbying and policy group that is designed to influence and change local governmental policies related to all aspects of human life.

Barry, I see you've given CyberHippy gratitude and I can imagine that it would be pretty provoking and unsettling to consider that you've sold advertising to such an organization or partnered with them in sponsoring the Occupy Town Hall. Check out the data. Maybe it's time to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Meanwhile guys, be respectful, keep an open mind, and do your research.

Liz

[ubaru]

this is a conspiracy like public education, training participants to stay seated, do the meaningless work, and space out. there is no hidden agenda in onebayarea plans. what are they for santa rosa? from 101 to fulton, from hwy 12 to two blocks south of sebastopol rd, 40+ residential units/acre and 40+ jobs too. this is comparable to the most densely developed parts of sf. preferred development area stack em and pack em. i guess roseland didn't have any reps at the first meeting.

what are they for where you live? are they even likely to manifest? does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends? don't shoot the messenger on this one, these are issues very close to home.

Thanks rossmen for having an open mind. It's good to see you start asking questions about this. But Mile's post is so inflammatory, I can't even read the rest of it. I did catch the words "I don't care" and that is too bad because this IS serious, and it is non-partisan, and the agenda would eventually make our society look like the Chinese if we didn't stop it.

Re: "does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends?" Yes, I've heard Rosa say that it does for 25 years.

Here's a post that's worth reading on the subject of UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI from a year ago. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...U.N.-Agenda-21

And I think it's worth everyone's while to pick one of the 100 minute videos at the bottom of https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/videos.html of Rosa Koire speaking on this in more detail. She is a professional real estate appraiser working for the state specializing in eminent domain, and she is a expert legal witness who speaks based only on facts. She's been studying the redevelopment issue for 10 years.

You'll notice that her audiences so far in these videos have been Tea Party people because property rights are a big concern for them. But don't let that stop you from listening. She says right up front to them that she's a liberal democrat who disagrees with them on many issues, but believes that keeping our freedom as Americans is vitally important. And I believe the ruling elite have won if we buy into their divide and conquer tactics that would have us spend so much energy polarizing around two parties that really operate as one corporate controlled party. We are all seeing now that it's the people vs. the corporate bankster elite. And if that is so, then this is worth your time, because they are planning our life for their benefit and our demise and it's time to get wise.

Yes, I am just the messenger. I've only taken in one hour and a half video that was absolutely fascinating as she followed the money, and a few pages of her website which I've summarized here. And I've learned what the Delphi technique is. Rosa's the expert and I'm grateful for her courage and tenacity to bring this information forward. Here's one of them.

Liz

[marv3lls]

Do you fully grok the benefits of urban growth vs suburban growth? High density urban settings and rural areas are both more efficient and environmentally friendly than mid-density suburban sprawl with it's dependence on vehicles to be able to do ANYTHING. High density areas make walking to a store far more palatable. Low density areas spread out the pollution from drivers over a much wider area, lowering its impact.

this is a conspiracy like public education, training participants to stay seated, do the meaningless work, and space out. there is no hidden agenda in onebayarea plans. what are they for santa rosa? from 101 to fulton, from hwy 12 to two blocks south of sebastopol rd, 40+ residential units/acre and 40+ jobs too. this is comparable to the most densely developed parts of sf. preferred development area stack em and pack em. i guess roseland didn't have any reps at the first meeting.

what are they for where you live? are they even likely to manifest? does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends? don't shoot the messenger on this one, these are issues very close to home.

[ubaru]

Do you fully grok the benefits of urban growth vs suburban growth? High density urban settings and rural areas are both more efficient and environmentally friendly than mid-density suburban sprawl with it's dependence on vehicles to be able to do ANYTHING. High density areas make walking to a store far more palatable. Low density areas spread out the pollution from drivers over a much wider area, lowering its impact.

Yes I fully grok the benefits of urban growth vs suburban growth. However at what price? Who asked my friend who lives in rural Sonoma county if it was Ok if his land be declared a "blighted" zone because there were too many local businesses in that area and not enough corporate ones like Kinkos, CVS, and Jack In the Box? That's ICLEI's definition of "blighted." Too many local businesses. Does that sound like your community values?

Who asked my friend if it was Ok to take his property taxes and put them into the redevelopment fund and stop paving some 1,200 miles of Sonoma county roads which is lowering his property value?

He was invited to a meeting that he couldn't make and even if he had, they were fake meetings. The agenda was pre-planned. Asking for people's input at One Bay Area meetings was/is all for show and to look like all is being handled democratically when it's not. That's what the Delphi meeting control technique is about.

That's just two examples.

From Wikipedia:

Franklin D. Roosevelt “ The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ” — "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-Trust Laws"

Most of us know the benefits you speak of. We've been thoroughly educated about how to go green. That's not what this discussion is about. How many know the real nature of redevelopment and UN Agenda 21? How many know how the green movement has been used as an excuse for so many toxic, community destroying, and unsustainable policies? Smart Meters are one. How many know the connection between the prison industrial complex and the policies being implemented in Sonoma County? See the 2nd half of this video which does an incredible job of following the money. That's the opportunity here.

I'd like to request that anyone who posts on this thread do some research at https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com and preferably watch one of the 100 minute videos at the bottom of https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/videos.html of Rosa Koire speaking on this in a lot more detail. Because there is a lot more valuable info than I can possibly put here. Then let's have some high quality discussion about it.

Liz

[CyberHippy]

Ok Mad Miles and CyberHippy,

Chill out with your knee jerk reactions and do your homework before attacking me. You didn't check out that link did you? You just shot from the hip.

Rosa Koire reported that the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy is an ICLEA group in the video I watched. ICLEA is the correct acronym. You can read about it here, and at the link I provided above.

From her website:
What does ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY) stand for? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It was created as a non-governmental spin-off by the United Nations to implement Agenda 21 locally. It is a lobbying and policy group that is designed to influence and change local governmental policies related to all aspects of human life.

Barry, I see you've given CyberHippy gratitude and I can imagine that it would be pretty provoking and unsettling to consider that you've sold advertising to such an organization or partnered with them in sponsoring the Occupy Town Hall. Check out the data. Maybe it's time to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Please re-read my post. If correcting your spelling is "attacking" you then your skin is far too thin to hang out on a public forum on the Internet.

I followed your links, they are both to a post of your own, in which the only mention I could find of "ICLEA" was yours. An actual defense of the spelling would have involved linking to someone else using the term. I followed through to the source page in your post: https://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com/ - searching for "ICLEA" gave me nothing, "ICLEI" gave me two links. I went through ten of the linked articles and did the search again, every time "ICLEA" had zero returns.

It gets better when, in the paragraph you quoted next (in red above) the spelling I presented is used exclusively.

Finally, did you just attack Barry for expressing gratitude for my post? That is a seriously weak debate tactic!

(see… now I'm attacking you - that's what it looks like)

[rossmen]

oh yeah, i fully grok it. i am an environmentalist. and i think the government has a role in building a more sustainable world. i just don't think that economic and racial segregation is the right strategy. agenda 21 and iclei are just government gas farts. onebayarea in santa rosa is the east side doing the west side as usual. infill means all the places humans live now, not just the current low income areas.

Do you fully grok the benefits of urban growth vs suburban growth? High density urban settings and rural areas are both more efficient and environmentally friendly than mid-density suburban sprawl with it's dependence on vehicles to be able to do ANYTHING. High density areas make walking to a store far more palatable. Low density areas spread out the pollution from drivers over a much wider area, lowering its impact.

[rossmen]

i am not so sure about koire's claim. i think it is a good question though. i really enjoyed her videos of the latest onebayarea meeting. i worry about her though, she has been the subject of hit pieces in the pd and will be jenkeled if sonoma county authorities get the chance.

i don't think the details of new sticks and carrots for building have been finalized. as a builder who has infilled (repair/remodel/addition), for myself and others, right now the system is sticks for this kind of work.

Thanks rossmen for having an open mind. It's good to see you start asking questions about this. But Mile's post is so inflammatory, I can't even read the rest of it. I did catch the words "I don't care" and that is too bad because this IS serious, and it is non-partisan, and the agenda would eventually make our society look like the Chinese if we didn't stop it.

Re: "does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends?" Yes, I've heard Rosa say that it does for 25 years.

Here's a post that's worth reading on the subject of UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI from a year ago. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...U.N.-Agenda-21

And I think it's worth everyone's while to pick one of the 100 minute videos at the bottom of https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/videos.html of Rosa Koire speaking on this in more detail. She is a professional real estate appraiser working for the state specializing in eminent domain, and she is a expert legal witness who speaks based only on facts. She's been studying the redevelopment issue for 10 years.

You'll notice that her audiences so far in these videos have been Tea Party people because property rights are a big concern for them. But don't let that stop you from listening. She says right up front to them that she's a liberal democrat who disagrees with them on many issues, but believes that keeping our freedom as Americans is vitally important. And I believe the ruling elite have won if we buy into their divide and conquer tactics that would have us spend so much energy polarizing around two parties that really operate as one corporate controlled party. We are all seeing now that it's the people vs. the corporate bankster elite. And if that is so, then this is worth your time, because they are planning our life for their benefit and our demise and it's time to get wise.

Yes, I am just the messenger. I've only taken in one hour and a half video that was absolutely fascinating as she followed the money, and a few pages of her website which I've summarized here. And I've learned what the Delphi technique is. Rosa's the expert and I'm grateful for her courage and tenacity to bring this information forward. Here's one of them.

Liz

[Barry]

I think this is an important discussion. This is essentially about the balance of communal good vs private good. Plus both sides of that dynamic can be prey to unhealthy abuses of it (co-opting the leadership of the communal good by private interests).

Let's start with a basic understanding of Agenda 21. You can find it here. It's basically a strategic plan for sustainable development.

Frankly I haven't read it yet, but I plan to. If you want to participate in this discussion from a knowledgable place, and not from a propaganda place, I suggest you read it.

Here's the opening paragraph:

Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.

The table of contents is quite promising. See it below with hot links.

A separate and worthy question is how it is being implemented locally.

Let's step back for the Tea Party and conspiracy theory echo-chamber and look what it's really about.

Table of Contents

1.	Preamble
SECTION I. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS
2.	International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies
3.	Combating poverty
4.	Changing consumption patterns
5.	Demographic dynamics and sustainability
6	Protecting and promoting human health conditions
7.	Promoting sustainable human settlement development
8.	Integrating environment and development in decision-making

SECTION II. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPMENT
9.	Protection of the atmosphere
10.	Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources
11.	Combating deforestation
12.	Managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and drought
13.	Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development
14.	Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development
15.	Conservation of biological diversity
16.	Environmentally sound management of biotechnology
17.	Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources
18.	Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources: application of integrated approaches to the development, management and use of water resources
19.	Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products
20.	Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Wastes, Including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Hazardous Wastes
21.	Environmentally sound management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues
22.	Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes
SECTION III. STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF MAJOR GROUPS
23.	Preamble
24.	Global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development
25.	Children and youth in sustainable development
26.	Recognizing and strengthening the role of indigenous people and their communities
27.	Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development
28.	Local authorities' initiatives in support of Agenda 21
29.	Strengthening the role of workers and their trade unions
30.	Strengthening the role of business and industry
31.	Scientific and technological community
32.	Strengthening the role of farmers
SECTION IV. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
33.	Financial resources and mechanisms
34.	Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building
35.	Science for sustainable development
36.	Promoting education, public awareness and training
37.	National mechanisms and international cooperation for capacity-building in developing countries
38.	International institutional arrangements
39.	International legal instruments and mechanisms
40.	Information for decision-making

[ubaru]

Let's start with a basic understanding of Agenda 21. You can find it here. It's basically a strategic plan for sustainable development.

I'm in disbelief that you would suggest this. I wouldn't go to the UN to get info on Agenda 21 anymore than I'd go to Monsanto to get info on how to grow organic corn.

Liz

[Orm Embar]

Hi Liz,

I've been hearing about Agenda 21 for years . . . mostly by people being freaked out about some conspiracy theory. I just started reading the actual text of Agenda 21 and have yet to find anything that alarms me or makes me feel like my liberties (or what's left of them) are being threatened. I don't have hours and hours to read every word . . . I'll work on it. Please help me by pointing to a particular section (of the actual document, not someone's interpretation) that would demonstrate a threat to my liberty beyond what has already transpired over the last decade.

Yes, I want to have a reference in the actual agenda 21 document, or an original source form someone who has signed the document, since this is the source that people are reacting to. This is not my going to Monsanto to learn how to grow organic crops. This is me going to Monsanto to read that they are really crazy and believe GMO crops are safe. I can make up my own mind about whether I think GMOs are safe or whether Agenda 21 threatens me based on the original source. This is also why I go to original source studies when researching each individual vaccine for my children . . . I don't go for emotional salesmanship (in either direction).

Thanks,
Larkin

I'm in disbelief that you would suggest this. I wouldn't go to the UN to get info on Agenda 21 anymore than I'd go to Monsanto to get info on how to grow organic corn.

Liz

[podfish]

... I can't even read the rest of it. I did catch the words "I don't care" ...

somehow I can't see this discussion going anywhere. Although I guess using the term 'discussion' isn't warranted once we've reached a point where posts are unreadable if they're disagreeable. Why would I expect anything from this thread other than ever louder assertions of a given perspective?

[Orm Embar]

Okay, I've read a little more and I find I have lots of questions . . .

According to the bits I've read so far, much of Agenda 21 is about local communities coming together and providing for our own general needs while also making sure we don't deplete our natural resources.

This is something that a lot of us are working towards.

At the same time, I am reading concerns about closed meetings - secret agendas - and concerns that our liberty is threatened.

I'm not into global central control, nor do I care for closed meetings or secret agendas.

I wonder, though, if there is some sort of movement to dissipate some of the wonderful community work starting to take place?

I am seeing most of the work that I do in the community being slammed as being part of a global control conspiracy. Much of what I find important in community is being dismissed in these articles, since it is viewed as being part of Agenda 21. How very convenient to marginalize a vast array of work by simply saying it's part of that Agenda 21 conspiracy for global control. Seems a little too simple to me. What is going on here?

How do we tease out the nasties, while keeping what is important to us? Are we to stop having town hall meetings because people are concerned that open, transparent, local communication is written into Agenda 21?

While I am very concerned about the ongoing erosion of our Bill of Rights and the lack of adherence to our Constitution - those pieces that make America great - I fear that focusing on Agenda 21 might be a distraction.

What do you all think?
-L

[theindependenteye]

A few thoughts--

* Any operational plan that tries to address a problem -- whether of local, national, worldwide or galactic scope -- is going to have some negative consequences, somewhere, that can be used as anecdotal argument against the plan as a whole. If it's a plan that might impact the potential profits of major corporate entities or of well-heeled developers, there will be a cadre of full-time professionals hired to seek out these anecdotes and use them to maximum effect.

* Any group of two or more people meeting to make any plan about anything whatsoever can be termed a "conspiracy" -- and will be if it's in the interests of the people opposing them. The more these opponents are themselves conspirators, the more vociferous they'll be about conspiracies.

* There's a great deal to be said for local control and local planning, and real dangers in sweeping generalities that don't take local complexities into account. On the other hand, when major economic, environmental, and social challenges are of international scope, they have to be addressed on that level. To argue otherwise is to say "God (or The Market) will provide."

The Agenda 21 conspiracy argument is, as far as I can see, one more Libertarian wig bubble designed to undercut ANY and ALL environmental activism (among other things). I know some perfectly intelligent people involved in that movement -- and I'm assuming those on this bulletin board are among them -- but I have yet to get a clear understanding how their arguments are for anything other than an absolute reversion to the robber-baron era of the 1880's and 1890's.

That era, of course, had Government hand-in-glove with Capital to establish monopolies, rape and pillage the West, and keep Labor under heavy guns. So the presumption, as far as I can read it, is that if we castrate Government, then Capital won't have a shield to do its nasty things and will only do good things because the People will be freed from their oppressive Government and fill their tanks only with gas from Good Guys. Making allowances for my snarky tone, is that the essence of it?

Which to me seems to involve about the same degree of blind faith as Mao's Great Leap Forward. The anti-regulatory movement demands absolute, incontrovertible, 100% certainty that global warming will produce catastrophe -- that is, seeing it actually HAPPEN -- before they will allow the slightest initiative toward its prevention. And yet they ask us to do away with major elements of Government, turn the clock back more than a century, depend on multinational corporations to Do the Right Thing simply because it's Good Business. And on what evidence?

The sum total of the evidence seems to be that, well, Government does some bad things. And yes, they sure do. And I've done some bad things during my 70 years on Planet Earth as well, but I don't intend to shoot myself any time soon.

Enough. Back to work.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[rossmen]

i agree that agenda 21 is a distraction from the real issue of how we come together to create a sustainable, loving, society. agenda 21 is just 21 yr old good advice from a collection of nations.

the challenge is how to act on the advice. some people challenge these actions by refering back to the original documents and name it as a conspiracy. that is their stuff. that doesn't mean their challenge to current actions is without merit.

i think it is more important to listen and understand each persons truth than to critique how they share it. if something you are involved in gets feedback that it is a conspiracy for one world total control, like maybe more bike lanes in sebastopol? there are a lot of different ways to understand this. they could just be concerned about their freedom of movement since the way the bike lanes are being created takes room from car lanes and parking.

please don't give up trying to create a better world!

Okay, I've read a little more and I find I have lots of questions . . .

According to the bits I've read so far, much of Agenda 21 is about local communities coming together and providing for our own general needs while also making sure we don't deplete our natural resources.

This is something that a lot of us are working towards.

At the same time, I am reading concerns about closed meetings - secret agendas - and concerns that our liberty is threatened.

I'm not into global central control, nor do I care for closed meetings or secret agendas.

I wonder, though, if there is some sort of movement to dissipate some of the wonderful community work starting to take place?

I am seeing most of the work that I do in the community being slammed as being part of a global control conspiracy. Much of what I find important in community is being dismissed in these articles, since it is viewed as being part of Agenda 21. How very convenient to marginalize a vast array of work by simply saying it's part of that Agenda 21 conspiracy for global control. Seems a little too simple to me. What is going on here?

How do we tease out the nasties, while keeping what is important to us? Are we to stop having town hall meetings because people are concerned that open, transparent, local communication is written into Agenda 21?

While I am very concerned about the ongoing erosion of our Bill of Rights and the lack of adherence to our Constitution - those pieces that make America great - I fear that focusing on Agenda 21 might be a distraction.

What do you all think?
-L

[ecoearthyacht]

I think you need to look at your motivations on making these claims about an attempt to bring some coherent international planning to previously not dealt with sustainability and natural resource depletion facing us and our planet. Smells like conspiracy thnking and paronoia about big planning goverment efforts to get some grasp of the issues needing for intergovermental cooperation on these most critical issue. Look in the mirror and your intent before you spout off here.

[ubaru]

Okay, I've read a little more and I find I have lots of questions . . .

According to the bits I've read so far, much of Agenda 21 is about local communities coming together and providing for our own general needs while also making sure we don't deplete our natural resources.

This is something that a lot of us are working towards.

At the same time, I am reading concerns about closed meetings - secret agendas - and concerns that our liberty is threatened.

I'm not into global central control, nor do I care for closed meetings or secret agendas.

I wonder, though, if there is some sort of movement to dissipate some of the wonderful community work starting to take place?

I am seeing most of the work that I do in the community being slammed as being part of a global control conspiracy. Much of what I find important in community is being dismissed in these articles, since it is viewed as being part of Agenda 21. How very convenient to marginalize a vast array of work by simply saying it's part of that Agenda 21 conspiracy for global control. Seems a little too simple to me. What is going on here?

How do we tease out the nasties, while keeping what is important to us? Are we to stop having town hall meetings because people are concerned that open, transparent, local communication is written into Agenda 21?

While I am very concerned about the ongoing erosion of our Bill of Rights and the lack of adherence to our Constitution - those pieces that make America great - I fear that focusing on Agenda 21 might be a distraction.

What do you all think?
-L

Larkin,

I'm hearing that you want your community work honored and it should be. I don't think this is a black or white situation. I'm hearing Rosa Koire reporting that there is quite a bit of corporate/government control happening in the name of sustainable redevelopment. Why not look into it and understand what is corporate influenced and what is genuine community work so that your community work is not usurped/wasted for corporate interests?

If, for instance, ICLEI is paying people to start and head up neighborhood associations that represent corporate interests, as Koire reports, wouldn't you want to know so you don't give it your time and energy?

I think your question

How do we tease out the nasties, while keeping what is important to us?

is a good one and could be done by finding out what the nasties are.

Although I don't sense a lot of support yet in this thread, I can't keep from thinking about having Rosa Koire speak for a group of people interested in building community and doing things that support the environment in a way that does not support corporate interests.

Liz

[CSummer]

Liz wrote: "Why not look into it and understand what is corporate influenced and what is genuine community work so that your community work is not usurped/wasted for corporate interests?"


Please give an example of what community work could be usurped/wasted for corporate interests.

"If, for instance, ICLEI is paying people to start and head up neighborhood associations that represent corporate interests, as Koire reports, wouldn't you want to know so you don't give it your time and energy?"


Does Ms Koire give any examples of how such neighborhood associations represent corporate interests?


I searched "Rosa Koire" and ICLEI. Haven't spent a lot of time looking but the first web site was one called "Freedom Advocates." Here's some of what I found on that web site:


They advocate that we "Unite against the advance of international collectivist movements that cause poverty, oppression, and a degraded earth."


(They do? What movements? And how do they cause these things? I wonder if they're referring to the Occupy movement?)


"Policies, procedures, and laws enacted by government and non-government organizations in the name of diversity, community, and earth are diminishing individual liberty, degrading ecology, and threatening human life and happiness across America."


(Is this true? No examples are offered. My guess is that they're most concerned about the liberties of large property owners and developers.)


"One of their concerns: Limitations on privately owned resource extraction."


Another is: "Freedom of Mobility: To the extent that government assumes authority for building infrastructure, some politicians have openly worked toward limiting transportation infrastructure to support what they call a "smart-growth" political agenda. "Smart growth" policies have openly and successfully resisted infrastructure improvements, resulting in a transportation infrastructure that is inadequate."


(i.e, They want more and bigger freeways. Note that this group originated in Santa Cruz county, where pressures for development have been extreme. One way of trying to limit that development - so they don't become another LA - is by not expanding the highways. Since I grew up in that county and have seen it over-run by housing subdivisions, apartments and shopping centers, I heartily support any attempts to resist such growth.)


Article title: "Democracy is Not Freedom (quote): "While young Iranians in Tehran may misguidedly carry signs proclaiming their march for “Democracy” and “Freedom”, the youth of America, the scholars, and the corporate professionals, indeed all sectors of society need to be made aware of the danger of democracy so they too might work to pursue the continued making of a republic that defends individual liberty and protects unalienable rights."


(Clearly they are anti-democratic, but don't suggest a better method of governance.)


Under "Regionalization of resources by non-elected administrators"




" * There is more than adequate water in Santa Cruz County to meet needs of humans, while supporting and enhancing the environment.
* That "sustainable" water policy is based on political objectives, not objective science.
* The further implementation of politically-motivated environmental policies will prevent proper storage and adequate use of water."


(This is clearly the position of developers against those who are charged with managing limited resources. Santa Cruz county has always had very limited water resources. I'm quite amazed that so much development has been able to happen given these limitations. And still the developers complain about "politically-motivated environmental policies." Yet they say nothing about what the "political motivation" might be, other than to do their job of managing resources adequately so they don't get fired!)


Reading this, I get the strong impression that these are people who profit from real estate development and perhaps construction and who appeal to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to resist any limitations to their exploitative business ventures. They don't seem to get that some resources are - or should be - part of the commons, held by everyone. Water is obviously one of those; land and other natural resources certainly should be. There can be no justice, freedom or equality until everyone's right of free access to a fair share of these resources is recognized, i.e., until the hording and exploitation of privately held natural resources is seen as the most fundamental economic injustice.


Human rights must always take precedence over human liberties.


CSummer

Larkin,

I'm hearing that you want your community work honored and it should be. I don't think this is a black or white situation. I'm hearing Rosa Koire reporting that there is quite a bit of corporate/government control happening in the name of sustainable redevelopment. Why not look into it and understand what is corporate influenced and what is genuine community work so that your community work is not usurped/wasted for corporate interests?

If, for instance, ICLEI is paying people to start and head up neighborhood associations that represent corporate interests, as Koire reports, wouldn't you want to know so you don't give it your time and energy?

I think your question is a good one and could be done by finding out what the nasties are.

Although I don't sense a lot of support yet in this thread, I can't keep from thinking about having Rosa Koire speak for a group of people interested in building community and doing things that support the environment in a way that does not support corporate interests.

Liz

[Larry Robinson]

If you want to see the embodiment of the libertarian dream of "getting government off our backs" you need look no further than Somalia - the land of unbridled opportunity.

[Rosa Koire]

Hi everyone,
Great to see this issue being openly discussed here. It's not an easy subject because there is so much disinformation from the corporate press, and because a vital part of the dialectic is the interest in keeping us apart from others who may be on the other end of the political spectrum from us. UN Agenda 21 is a corporate plan for implementing totalitarianism under the banner of environmentalism. Yes, it sounds good when you read some of this stuff. Undoubtedly some of the best public relations people in the world are working on developing jargon that appeals to our sense of concern for the planet.

Sustainable Development is a term that was created by the 1983-87 Brundtland Commission (UN World Commission on Environment and Development). The definition is: 'Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.' Who could be against that, right? It was decided that what we were doing at the time was indeed compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Some things that were declared unsustainable: single family homes, meat eating, appliances, private vehicles, air conditioning, dams, tillage (farming). The commission was told to come back in 5 years with the 'action' plan for implementing sustainable development world wide. UN Agenda 21 is the action plan adopted by 179 nations in 1992, and signed onto by George H. W. Bush for the US. It is a plan to inventory and control all resources--human and natural---and all means of production in the world. It is a whole life plan. The three cornerstones of UN Agenda 21 are ecology, economy, and social equity. Sounds great.

The following year Bill Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Who was on it? 12 cabinet level secretaries, captains of industry including Dow Chemical and Ken Lay of Enron, and a group of environmental NGO's. The PCSD gave a multi-million dollar grant to the American Planning Association to come up with a way to get sustainable development into every area of the US. The APA came up with Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Growing Smart is Smart Growth. This is not just a design style for construction but a plan to remake cities across the US. Still sounds ok, right? Maybe.

The plan, according to the 12 cabinet level secretaries, could have been implemented administratively through the Departments of Defense, Education, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development etc. But because the proposals were so radical and involved control and inventory of all land, human beings, and information, it was suggested that Americans may not like having this plan imposed on them. So the PCSD commissioned Sustainable America, A New Consensus. Now, a consensus, if you are an old hippie feminist like I am, means that you have some kind of an action you want to do, or some idea you're working on with a group, and you get together in a room with all of your pals and hammer it out, for hours if necessary, until everyone is heard and an agreement can be reached on the plan. But the President's Council on Sustainable Development called for a 'new consensus.' This new consensus is the neutralization of the opposition. It is based on the RAND Corporation mind control technique called the Delphi Technique. This is the technique that is being used in every government sponsored 'community input' meeting you'll go to now. You are invited to give your input on the new plan, whether it is ONE BAY AREA or the redevelopment project, or the General Plan update, but your input is solicited to give the illusion of public buy-in. The plan was designed and completed before you walked in the room. If your comments don't fit the model they will be neutralized and thrown out. The jargon is well designed to make you feel that the plan is 'green', that you are cool if you go along. It sounds so good--who wouldn't want to be vibrant, walkable, bikeable, friendly, sustainable?

Public private partnerships are the backbone of UN Agenda 21. Corporate partnerships that look and sound so great. BP IS GREEN! They partner with local groups. They fund political campaigns. They serve as incubators for local politicians who will play ball. They buy advertising space. They give grants. They get favors. They back developers. They get laws passed. They do not want dissent. Revolution is bad for business.

I really encourage you to take a look at our websites for more info. We have source documentation, videos, radio shows, and commentary. I'll be speaking at the California Libertarian Convention in March and I can tell you that this is not a left/right issue, that more and more Democrats across the nation are getting the info and recognizing that the environmental movement has been hijacked.

Thank you for keeping an open mind and checking out the information.
Rosa

Rosa Koire, ASA
Executive Director
Post Sustainability Institute
www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com

[CSummer]

Thanks for this post. I would be interested to see more information supporting this statement:

"UN Agenda 21 is a corporate plan for implementing totalitarianism under the banner of environmentalism."


CSummer

Hi everyone,
Great to see this issue being openly discussed here. It's not an easy subject because there is so much disinformation from the corporate press, and because a vital part of the dialectic is the interest in keeping us apart from others who may be on the other end of the political spectrum from us. UN Agenda 21 is a corporate plan for implementing totalitarianism under the banner of environmentalism. Yes, it sounds good when you read some of this stuff. Undoubtedly some of the best public relations people in the world are working on developing jargon that appeals to our sense of concern for the planet.

Sustainable Development is a term that was created by the 1983-87 Brundtland Commission (UN World Commission on Environment and Development). The definition is: 'Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.' Who could be against that, right? It was decided that what we were doing at the time was indeed compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Some things that were declared unsustainable: single family homes, meat eating, appliances, private vehicles, air conditioning, dams, tillage (farming). The commission was told to come back in 5 years with the 'action' plan for implementing sustainable development world wide. UN Agenda 21 is the action plan adopted by 179 nations in 1992, and signed onto by George H. W. Bush for the US. It is a plan to inventory and control all resources--human and natural---and all means of production in the world. It is a whole life plan. The three cornerstones of UN Agenda 21 are ecology, economy, and social equity. Sounds great.

The following year Bill Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Who was on it? 12 cabinet level secretaries, captains of industry including Dow Chemical and Ken Lay of Enron, and a group of environmental NGO's. The PCSD gave a multi-million dollar grant to the American Planning Association to come up with a way to get sustainable development into every area of the US. The APA came up with Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Growing Smart is Smart Growth. This is not just a design style for construction but a plan to remake cities across the US. Still sounds ok, right? Maybe.

The plan, according to the 12 cabinet level secretaries, could have been implemented administratively through the Departments of Defense, Education, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development etc. But because the proposals were so radical and involved control and inventory of all land, human beings, and information, it was suggested that Americans may not like having this plan imposed on them. So the PCSD commissioned Sustainable America, A New Consensus. Now, a consensus, if you are an old hippie feminist like I am, means that you have some kind of an action you want to do, or some idea you're working on with a group, and you get together in a room with all of your pals and hammer it out, for hours if necessary, until everyone is heard and an agreement can be reached on the plan. But the President's Council on Sustainable Development called for a 'new consensus.' This new consensus is the neutralization of the opposition. It is based on the RAND Corporation mind control technique called the Delphi Technique. This is the technique that is being used in every government sponsored 'community input' meeting you'll go to now. You are invited to give your input on the new plan, whether it is ONE BAY AREA or the redevelopment project, or the General Plan update, but your input is solicited to give the illusion of public buy-in. The plan was designed and completed before you walked in the room. If your comments don't fit the model they will be neutralized and thrown out. The jargon is well designed to make you feel that the plan is 'green', that you are cool if you go along. It sounds so good--who wouldn't want to be vibrant, walkable, bikeable, friendly, sustainable?

Public private partnerships are the backbone of UN Agenda 21. Corporate partnerships that look and sound so great. BP IS GREEN! They partner with local groups. They fund political campaigns. They serve as incubators for local politicians who will play ball. They buy advertising space. They give grants. They get favors. They back developers. They get laws passed. They do not want dissent. Revolution is bad for business.

I really encourage you to take a look at our websites for more info. We have source documentation, videos, radio shows, and commentary. I'll be speaking at the California Libertarian Convention in March and I can tell you that this is not a left/right issue, that more and more Democrats across the nation are getting the info and recognizing that the environmental movement has been hijacked.

Thank you for keeping an open mind and checking out the information.
Rosa

Rosa Koire, ASA
Executive Director
Post Sustainability Institute
www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com

[Rosa Koire]

I wrote a book on this (BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21) and have provided details there. It's not a long book but it's too long to post here. You can get it on Amazon or Kindle. Or not.
Here's something from our website:

The three cornerstones of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development are Economy, Ecology, and Social Equity.

Economic collapse creates a chain of events, but on a micro level (county, city) there is a marked reduction in revenue for maintenance of services. Loss of services to outlying areas means, for example, roads not being maintained to rural/suburban areas. Sonoma County Board of Supes last year said that they would only be paving 150 miles of the more than 1,380 miles of county roads. They intend to pulverize the 1,200+ miles of road and return them to gravel. Roads not being maintained to those areas, schools not being supported in those areas, law enforcement/fire/social services not being supported in those areas means a gradual movement into the denser city centers. Add to that the increased cost of gasoline (manipulated), and the higher cost of energy (manipulated) to heat and cool statistically larger homes, and you have more pressure to leave rural and suburban areas. Reduction of energy usage is key. Smart Growth/New Urbanism is the supposed answer: smaller units, attached condos, little or no parking, few private cars. More eyes on the street. Paid for and subsidized with your property tax dollars through redevelopment, and your transportation tax dollars. You pay for 30-45 years, or longer and this money is diverted from your city and county General Funds.

In addition to these factors, ecologically motivated regulation makes rural/suburban development prohibitive. From stream/creek/ditch protection to watershed protection, to bayland/inland/rural corridor prohibitions, to increased species protection (lists are growing), the use of land is greatly limited. Water well monitoring and loss of water rights reduce the opportunity for living outside of cities. Wildlands programs that prohibit roads/trails into rural areas while supposedly protecting them with conservation easements (sale of development rights to Agricultural Land Trusts that restrict farmers and ranchers from using their lands and therefore make it impossible to farm for more than one more generation) increase the loss of our food source independence.

Add to this the pressure from Climate Protection Campaigns to reduce our energy usage to pre-1930 levels (80% below 1990 levels by 2050 is the goal for the US) and increased regulations on industry and you have the perfect storm for loss of jobs and greater dependence on other countries for goods. As the population becomes more and more urbanized and less able to provide food or necessary products, more people are dependent on the government for housing, food, and other basic necessities. Government itself becomes dependent on grants and loans with requirements attached. In this way policy-makers are influenced and pressured by the corporatocracy. Public/private partnerships favor some businesses over others and completely unbalance the playing field. Independent businesses go out. Poverty works its way into the middle class.

Social equity, another one of the cornerstones of Agenda 21 comes in here. As a major leveler, the loss of money, land, food, and energy independence brings the US into 'social equity' with the poorer countries. This is a goal of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. Health will suffer, presumably health care will suffer, nutrition will suffer. Psychological problems, stress from living in tight areas with other un- or underemployed people, and crime will result. Community Oriented Policing will encourage, if not require, people to watch their neighbors and report suspicious activity. More activity will be identified as 'crime'--such as obesity, smoking, drinking when you have a drinking problem, name calling, leaving lights on, neglect (in someone's perception) of children, elderly, and pets, driving when you could ride a bike, breaking a curfew, failure to do mandatory volunteering. The 'community' will demand more law enforcement to restore order, and more rules and regulations will ensue. The National Defense Authorization Act, new rules redefining torture, FBI permitted to surveil you without a warrant---all part of the plan. The Chinese and Russian models are instructive. See: Nien Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai, and Alexzander Solzhenitsen's The Gulag Archipelago for details.

You can see that the groundwork for this has been laid and is being implemented throughout the nation. When you create deep dependence and then withdraw assistance the result is chaos and poverty. Propaganda infuses our culture with messages that there are just a few winners and many losers; that we are killing the earth and time is running out; that prosperity is an anachronism and detrimental to life; that individual freedom is selfish and injures those who are less free.

This is Agenda 21.

Communitarianism is the 'balancing' or subsuming of individual rights below the needs of the 'community.' The community is defined now as the global village. So anything identified as serving the global village takes precedence over the rights of the individual. In the United States, our constitution guarantees our rights to life and liberty. Ownership of property includes that of our own persons.

Personal liberty is at odds with Communitarianism, the new standard of the Twenty-first Century.
Rosa Koire

Thanks for this post. I would be interested to see more information supporting this statement:

"UN Agenda 21 is a corporate plan for implementing totalitarianism under the banner of environmentalism."


CSummer

[podfish]

...Economic collapse creates a chain of events, but on a micro level (county, city) there is a marked reduction in revenue for maintenance of services. Loss of services to outlying areas means, for example, roads not being maintained to rural/suburban areas.

we can agree economic collapse is bad, and has this kind of effect. So does a society's unwillingness to allocate resources to maintenance of public assets - with identical effects. The symptom is not the cause.

...ecologically motivated regulation makes rural/suburban development prohibitive. From stream/creek/ditch protection to watershed protection, to bayland/inland/rural corridor prohibitions, to increased species protection (lists are growing), the use of land is greatly limited. Water well monitoring and loss of water rights reduce the opportunity for living outside of cities.

true, preserving the "right" to extract every last drop of productivity from the land makes it easier and cheaper to develop it.

Add to this the pressure from Climate Protection Campaigns to reduce our energy usage to pre-1930 levels... and increased regulations on industry and you have the perfect storm for loss of jobs

I suppose I'm denying jobs to those who would like to tear down my house for cheap firewood, too - although I suppose that I'm protected from that, under a libertarian framework, by the extreme respect given to private property rights.

Government itself becomes dependent on grants and loans

As opposed to dependent on taxation? I don't see the point... were you suggesting government generates revenue from its profits, like a business?

. Public/private partnerships favor some businesses over others and completely unbalance the playing field. Independent businesses go out. Poverty works its way into the middle class.

This assumes you accept the dogma that the "balance" created by pure free-enterprise is actually better for the society as a whole. To my mind, it creates winners and losers, not "balance".

Social equity... comes in here... , the loss of money, land, food, and energy independence brings the US into 'social equity' with the poorer countries. This is a goal of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

This is the crux of the issue for me -- it explicitly defines our comfort as based on the suffering of the rest of the world. And accepts it as a given.

Communitarianism is the 'balancing' or subsuming of individual rights below the needs of the 'community.' The community is defined now as the global village. So anything identified as serving the global village takes precedence over the rights of the individual. In the United States, our constitution guarantees our rights to life and liberty. Ownership of property includes that of our own persons.

Boy, Communitarianism sounds like a good idea, by most ethical standards! Certainly by Christian ones, which we are repeatedly reminded are the foundation of our country.

Personal liberty is at odds with Communitarianism, the new standard of the Twenty-first Century.

Just because it's "at odds" doesn't mean you can't try to accommodate both goals. It would be truly remarkable if everything we want to accomplish reinforced each other; sadly we most often have to come up with tradeoffs between opposing good options.

[Rosa Koire]

A full response to your deconstruction can be found in my book. This
is a large topic and it appears that you are predisposed to argue
regarding these points. That's ok, and I invite you to read my book
where this is all broken down and clearly explained.

Let's take your assumption that Communitarianism is ethical. Who is
it that determines what is 'best' for the global village, what the
'rights' of the global community are? Is it you? No. The individual
always loses when her rights are 'balanced' against those undefined,
amorphous rights of the community. We have a constitution which
guarantees individual rights. Communitarianism, when established as
the law of the land, looks like the Kelo decision (2005 Supreme
Court), being searched at the airport, domestic surveillance, and
restrictive land use that favors large developers. As I have stated,
spin can make this sound good. Look around you for the results.

You misunderstand my point about government being dependent on
corporations. Government revenue is generated from taxes, fees, and
fines. This is where the money comes from. If you are not working,
if your property taxes are lowered because of falling values, if land
is taken off the tax rolls because it has passed into public or
non-profit ownership, if permits are not being issued, if property tax
dollars are diverted through redevelopment---there is less money to
run the actual day to day functions of government. A starving
infrastructure and administrative system will be willing to partner
with corporations in order to continue to function. Public private
partnerships are the result. Prisons, for instance, are the ultimate
in corporate ownership of public infrastructure. Private corporations
construct and run prisons and so have an interest in lobbying for
longer sentences, expanded definition of crimes, and more prison
construction. Prison operators develop and fund candidates and sites
prisons in areas where they can impact redistricting (prisoners, even
if they can't vote, count as population). Public private partnerships
are made to sound good to you but are used as a building block of the
corporate take-over.

Your last comment about 'tradeoffs' is a concern. I really don't
think you realize what you're saying there. Yes, we need laws. I am
not an anarchist. But when you place your individual rights (defined,
clearly identified) against the 'rights of the community' (undefined,
envisioned by you as something entirely different than what the
corporations envision--Citizens United--) then you will lose. It will
sound nice though. Every totalitarian state is established 'for the
common good.' Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China---all
for the fatherland, all for the motherland, all for the common good.
The rhetoric always sounds good. National Defense Authorization Act?
All for the common good.

Rosa Koire
Behind The Green Mask: UN Agenda 21
at Amazon and on Kindle

we can agree economic collapse is bad, and has this kind of effect. So does a society's unwillingness to allocate resources to maintenance of public assets - with identical effects. The symptom is not the cause.
true, preserving the "right" to extract every last drop of productivity from the land makes it easier and cheaper to develop it.
I suppose I'm denying jobs to those who would like to tear down my house for cheap firewood, too - although I suppose that I'm protected from that, under a libertarian framework, by the extreme respect given to private property rights.
As opposed to dependent on taxation? I don't see the point... were you suggesting government generates revenue from its profits, like a business?
This assumes you accept the dogma that the "balance" created by pure free-enterprise is actually better for the society as a whole. To my mind, it creates winners and losers, not "balance".
This is the crux of the issue for me -- it explicitly defines our comfort as based on the suffering of the rest of the world. And accepts it as a given.
Boy, Communitarianism sounds like a good idea, by most ethical standards! Certainly by Christian ones, which we are repeatedly reminded are the foundation of our country. Just because it's "at odds" doesn't mean you can't try to accommodate both goals. It would be truly remarkable if everything we want to accomplish reinforced each other; sadly we most often have to come up with tradeoffs between opposing good options.

[podfish]

... it appears that you are predisposed to argue
regarding these points

???

Your last comment about 'tradeoffs' is a concern. I really don't
think you realize what you're saying there.

probably I'm just parroting something I heard some smart folks say once... they must have been dumber than I thought. Never mind then.