Boston.com: "Vermont secession movement gains traction"

[jsorens]

Anyway, the UN's idea for global governance is to divide up the world in bioregions -- tracts of land that are similar types of terrain.

In the USA we would have New Acadia, Pacifica, and then I think one other in the center, forgot what that is called, but it is consistent with the NAU's superhighway.

Really? That sounds to me more like the utopian visions of some half-crazed "deep ecologist" than official UN policy. The UN has typically been virulently opposed to secessionist movements, consistent with the interests of its members and funders. For instance, it even sent troops to crush, with much bloodshed, the Katanga secession attempt. UN treaties on self-determination have repeatedly explicitly excluded secessionist movements.

[CNHT]

Anyway, the UN's idea for global governance is to divide up the world in bioregions -- tracts of land that are similar types of terrain.

In the USA we would have New Acadia, Pacifica, and then I think one other in the center, forgot what that is called, but it is consistent with the NAU's superhighway.

Really? That sounds to me more like the utopian visions of some half-crazed "deep ecologist" than official UN policy. The UN has typically been virulently opposed to secessionist movements, consistent with the interests of its members and funders. For instance, it even sent troops to crush, with much bloodshed, the Katanga secession attempt. UN treaties on self-determination have repeatedly explicitly excluded secessionist movements.

Of course they are opposed to any movement that disagrees with *their* idea of how the world should be divided.
I've been reading about this for years but I think Earth Summit on Agenda 21 was introduced finally to the public in 1992.
It is based on environmentalism, which is why I am so opposed to the half-crazed environmentalist 'religion'.

For some group that is supposedly non-governmental, they sure as hell have some far-reaching plans for us all...scary!

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

[jsorens]

Anyway, the UN's idea for global governance is to divide up the world in bioregions -- tracts of land that are similar types of terrain.

In the USA we would have New Acadia, Pacifica, and then I think one other in the center, forgot what that is called, but it is consistent with the NAU's superhighway.

Really? That sounds to me more like the utopian visions of some half-crazed "deep ecologist" than official UN policy. The UN has typically been virulently opposed to secessionist movements, consistent with the interests of its members and funders. For instance, it even sent troops to crush, with much bloodshed, the Katanga secession attempt. UN treaties on self-determination have repeatedly explicitly excluded secessionist movements.

Of course they are opposed to any movement that disagrees with *their* idea of how the world should be divided.
I've been reading about this for years but I think Earth Summit on Agenda 21 was introduced finally to the public in 1992.
It is based on environmentalism, which is why I am so opposed to the half-crazed environmentalist 'religion'.

For some group that is supposedly non-governmental, they sure as hell have some far-reaching plans for us all...scary!

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

Well, I think Agenda 21 is largely soft-pated, of course, but I don't see anything in there about breaking countries up into bioregions.

[CNHT]

Well, I think Agenda 21 is largely soft-pated, of course, but I don't see anything in there about breaking countries up into bioregions.

Oh yes they took that off...hard to find it anywhere except where it's been captured and reprinted.

Here is a great article about it....and then, the quote from their Global Governance plan is enough to curl your hair!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32662

"Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. ... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. ..."

And now, I'm going out for lobster!   

[jsorens]

Well, I think Agenda 21 is largely soft-pated, of course, but I don't see anything in there about breaking countries up into bioregions.

Oh yes they took that off...hard to find it anywhere except where it's been captured and reprinted.

Here is a great article about it....and then, the quote from their Global Governance plan is enough to curl your hair!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32662

"Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. ... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. ..."

And now, I'm going out for lobster!   

Oh, I fully concede that the UN is a nasty organization that wants to arrogate to itself as much power as possible. I just don't think the VT folks have anything to do with these crazy ideas; if they did, I wouldn't bother advising SVR.

[CNHT]

Oh, I fully concede that the UN is a nasty organization that wants to arrogate to itself as much power as possible. I just don't think the VT folks have anything to do with these crazy ideas; if they did, I wouldn't bother advising SVR.

The fact that their stated idea as I found in 'hankster's' original post of 2005 is EXACTLY the same as the UN's, to the letter, including the name of the 'region' made it seem suspicious to me.

Of course they could be unwitting pawns...and not know the danger of the UN.

[EthanAllen]

I just don't think the VT folks have anything to do with these crazy ideas; if they did, I wouldn't bother advising SVR.

Exactly. Why would an organization devoted to radical decentralism, subsidiarity and secession then sign on to be commanded by a larger more unaccountable organization? It makes no sense at all which is what I usually find as typical of these conspiracy theories.

[CNHT]

I just don't think the VT folks have anything to do with these crazy ideas; if they did, I wouldn't bother advising SVR.

Exactly. Why would an organization devoted to radical decentralism, subsidiarity and secession then sign on to be commanded by a larger more unaccountable organization? It makes no sense at all which is what I usually find as typical of these conspiracy theories.

Because Bill, they don't know any better and you could take advantage of them. Why would you want to gather people up and tax their land as rent and insist his way was the only way?

Sounds like a megalomaniac/slavery to me.

[KurtDaBear]

To understand what this means requires a reassessment of, for instance, the word 'capitalism'. In its strictest (and simplest) form, the term means only this: PROFIT FROM CAPITAL. 'Socialism', in a less-strict, but nevertheless accurate and simple form means: OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM.

WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T CAPITALISM

   1. If I build a house and sell it to you, that is not capitalism, although it might be a free-market transaction.
   2. If I lend you the money to build a house and charge you interest, that IS capitalism, and the anarchists (including Benjamin Tucker)    claimed that the transaction did not take place in a free market.

Why isn't the first scenario capitalism? Because I didn't use capital to make my money -- I used my labor.

If the lender in Example #2 made his money building and selling houses when he was younger, but is now too old to build more houses, would it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead? 

Or maybe he should have just kept the houses he built and rented them to people, then he'd be something else negative by your collectivist view of the world--a landlord or a slumlord. 

Any way you slice it, you're just another promoter of class envy trying to entice the poor and gullible into yet another political scheme based on assertions that money is a tool of evil as opposed to just a tool that can be used for good or ill.  These ideas have been around in since a power-hungry preacher first corrupted the Biblical admonition that "Love of money is the root of all evil." into "Money is the root of all evil."

[EthanAllen]

would it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead?

What would he get for his "rent" of money if the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited (free)?

[Russell Kanning]

these vermont secession guys sure don't seem like UN types to me

[CNHT]

these vermont secession guys sure don't seem like UN types to me

Maybe not but, they may be inadvertently advocating what the UN would like to see.

[Braddogg]

these vermont secession guys sure don't seem like UN types to me

Maybe not but, they may be inadvertently advocating what the UN would like to see.

What's the UN position on clean water?

[cxxguy]

would it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead?

What would he get for his "rent" of money if the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited (free)?

If the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited, and there were no interest payments, anybody who wanted to could go get great big wheelbarrows of "money" to carry around with them.

This would do them absolutely no good.

What would they do with this money?  Who would bother working for it, if they could just pick it off the money trees?  Who would exchange things of value, like gold or silver or wheat or oil or houses for money, when they could just walk into a bank and have it for the asking?

What you're describing is called "inflationary credit expansion".  Governments prints lots of currency, the currency loses all it's value, hyper-inflation sets in, and smart people barter or just stop working.  Consider Germany just before Hitler took over.

The next thing, the government realizes that they money is worthless, so they over-correct.  Then you have deflation.  Consider the United States during the Great Depression.  That is how the Federal Reserve caused it.  Sure, they got the "roaring twenties", but you just can't build the same house of cards forever.  Sooner or later, every artificial boom is answered with a very natural bust.

If you want a "free credit", go to homeowners, and ask if they will let you rake their yards.  Then call all the leaves you accumulate money.  When you find nobody will trade anything for it, you can always throw it in the fireplace on a cold winter night.

[KBCraig]

If you want a "free credit", go to homeowners, and ask if they will let you rake their yards.  Then call all the leaves you accumulate money.  When you find nobody will trade anything for it, you can always throw it in the fireplace on a cold winter night.

+1 for the best summation of gummint money I've ever read!