Big global warming demo upcoming in Nashua

[CNHT]

Of course, I'd rather see the U.S. go isolationist and mind its own business.

It's not isolationist to trade with others but not interfere in the way they govern.
I mean look what harm the UN does:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9953.0

Read some of my posts in that thread. We contribute to this killing, which is less talked about than the wars we oppose.

The UN is killing people or controlling them in some way, every day, that you don't always hear about.

Ever wonder why the parental notification law was so important to be repealed? People must be desensitized to killing to prepare them for this kind of euthanasia crap. PP is an evil organization that works with the UN.

And it's not about religion or being pro-life (but now you see why that has to be demonized) but about a large bureaucratic totalitarian government telling you whether you can live or die, reproduce, where you can live and what you can do.

[J’raxis 270145]

THE U.N. PLAN TO TAKE OVER THE INTERNET
Jennifer Rast - January 10, 2004

I remember seeing this on Slashdot. This is a perfect example of my dual position on the U.N.—the Internet should be controlled by some international body, not a U.S. government corporation such as ICANN. The Internet's international, isn't it?

But none of these other countries should be able to say what people outside their own borders publish on the Internet. What you, as an American, put on the Internet from within the United States, is not and should not be under their jurisdiction. If China wants to oppress their own net users, that's China's business, but expecting the U.S. or Canada or Germany or anyone else to act on their complaints should be met with nothing other than laughter.

You think the internet should be controlled? I don't. It's just fine as it is now.
If you don't like a website, you don't have to go to it.

It is controlled... by the U.S. government.

And by "controlled" I meant "managed," as in, who ought to manage it—the U.S., or some international entity?

[CNHT]

THE U.N. PLAN TO TAKE OVER THE INTERNET
Jennifer Rast - January 10, 2004

I remember seeing this on Slashdot. This is a perfect example of my dual position on the U.N.—the Internet should be controlled by some international body, not a U.S. government corporation such as ICANN. The Internet's international, isn't it?

But none of these other countries should be able to say what people outside their own borders publish on the Internet. What you, as an American, put on the Internet from within the United States, is not and should not be under their jurisdiction. If China wants to oppress their own net users, that's China's business, but expecting the U.S. or Canada or Germany or anyone else to act on their complaints should be met with nothing other than laughter.

You think the internet should be controlled? I don't. It's just fine as it is now.
If you don't like a website, you don't have to go to it.

It is controlled... by the U.S. government.

And by "controlled" I meant "managed," as in, who ought to manage it—the U.S., or some international entity?

I am not sure how much control they wield in the way of content -- do they censor? The UN clearly wants to censor according to what they think you should see and not see. Don't forget that the UN's proposed constitution would determine your rights. They would not be natural rights as our US Constitution guarantees.

[J’raxis 270145]

Of course, I'd rather see the U.S. go isolationist and mind its own business.

It's not isolationist to trade with others but not interfere in the way they govern.

Trade with all, entangling alliances with none, à la George Washington's formula is fine with me, and preferable to complete isolationism (autarky). I was using isolationist in the way people usually mean it nowadays, meaning non-interventionist. It's the entangling alliances, military bases in 100+ countries, active conflicts in two countries, clandestine meddling in half a dozen others... that's the part where the U.N. or some international body ought to be able to temper the U.S.'s behavior somehow.

I mean look what harm the UN does:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9953.0

Read some of my posts in that thread. We contribute to this killing, which is less talked about than the wars we oppose.

The UN is killing people or controlling them in some way, every day, that you don't always hear about.

Ever wonder why the parental notification law was so important to be repealed? People must be desensitized to killing to prepare them for this kind of euthanasia crap. PP is an evil organization that works with the UN.

And it's not about religion or being pro-life (but now you see why that has to be demonized) but about a large bureaucratic totalitarian government telling you whether you can live or die, reproduce, where you can live and what you can do.

I only skimmed that, but much of the stuff sounds like, again, U.N. interference within national borders—which is the part that I believe needs to be scrapped. It's the part of the U.N. that tries to mediate international relations, and force countries to not arbitrarily invade one another—the security council, at least how it was originally envisioned, and some of the functions of the general assembly—that the world needs.

[CNHT]

I only skimmed that, but much of the stuff sounds like, again, U.N. interference within national borders—which is the part that I believe needs to be scrapped. It's the part of the U.N. that tries to mediate international relations, and force countries to not arbitrarily invade one another—the security council, at least how it was originally envisioned, and some of the functions of the general assembly—that the world needs.

Actually it's about population control and sustainability -- deciding who can live or die, and where those who survive can live, and how to move them around at their will.

VERY BAD.

[J’raxis 270145]

THE U.N. PLAN TO TAKE OVER THE INTERNET
Jennifer Rast - January 10, 2004

I remember seeing this on Slashdot. This is a perfect example of my dual position on the U.N.—the Internet should be controlled by some international body, not a U.S. government corporation such as ICANN. The Internet's international, isn't it?

But none of these other countries should be able to say what people outside their own borders publish on the Internet. What you, as an American, put on the Internet from within the United States, is not and should not be under their jurisdiction. If China wants to oppress their own net users, that's China's business, but expecting the U.S. or Canada or Germany or anyone else to act on their complaints should be met with nothing other than laughter.

You think the internet should be controlled? I don't. It's just fine as it is now.
If you don't like a website, you don't have to go to it.

It is controlled... by the U.S. government.

And by "controlled" I meant "managed," as in, who ought to manage it—the U.S., or some international entity?

I am not sure how much control they wield in the way of content -- do they censor?

I can't think of a documented incident where the U.S. took down foreign-owned content because they could. Although, with the way the U.S. is becoming more obsessive about "intellectual property" enforcement worldwide, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually resort to this tactic if some other country gets uppity about not shutting down some "pirate" website. Keep watching the Pirate Bay and AllofMP3 dramas and you might eventually see them do just this.

Basically, whether or not the U.S. has, the U.S. can. Think of this from the point of view of a foreign country: If you were in charge of the government IT infrastructure in Cuba or Venezuela or Iran right now, would you be comfortable with the fact that your IP address allocation is ultimately determined by an organ of the U.S. government?

The UN clearly wants to censor according to what they think you should see and not see. Don't forget that the UN's proposed constitution would determine your rights. They would not be natural rights as our US Constitution guarantees.

Yeah, and that's why I said the Internet should be controlled managed by "some international body"; I didn't put my support behind this U.N. program, because it's too far-reaching.

[J’raxis 270145]

I only skimmed that, but much of the stuff sounds like, again, U.N. interference within national borders—which is the part that I believe needs to be scrapped. It's the part of the U.N. that tries to mediate international relations, and force countries to not arbitrarily invade one another—the security council, at least how it was originally envisioned, and some of the functions of the general assembly—that the world needs.

Actually it's about population control and sustainability -- deciding who can live or die, and where those who survive can live, and how to move them around at their will.

VERY BAD.

Right—and this is all implemented through programs, bureaucracies, and treaties which meddle in the internal affairs of the various member states, right?

[CNHT]

Right—and this is all implemented through programs, bureaucracies, and treaties which meddle in the internal affairs of the various member states, right?

Yes but mostly funded through our tax dollars. To override our Constitution in favor of internationalism. Which means some other country is determining what we do. I mean they are ticked that WE don't follow the one-child policy like China does. They want to be the determiner of who lives and dies...as Hubbard said.

Sick isn't it? The UN is sick....

[error]

Can we try to have one topic per thread, please? (Or at most one and a half.)

As for global warming, carbon is the most basic building block of life. And taxation is destruction. To the extent that carbon is taxed, life is destroyed.

Plus, there's that whole issue of whether carbon dioxide causes global warming at all...

[CNHT]

Can we try to have one topic per thread, please? (Or at most one and a half.)

As for global warming, carbon is the most basic building block of life. And taxation is destruction. To the extent that carbon is taxed, life is destroyed.

Plus, there's that whole issue of whether carbon dioxide causes global warming at all...

Ditto...but we have one more stupid movie trying to say it does.

[EthanAllen]

Collected by the U.N.? No. In no way do I want to help further limit U.S. sovereignty. We already have enough problems with the federal government stomping on the states—we don't need another supernational body stomping on the U.S..

Are US payroll taxes collected by the UN? No. The carbon tax would replace the US payroll taxes as Gore suggested in his testimony to Congress. I would prefer the collection of the use of our common asset - the sky - as a carbon sink and sent directly and equally to all of the owners of the common asset in the form of a citizens dividend like they do in Alaska for oil.

[J’raxis 270145]

Collected by the U.N.? No. In no way do I want to help further limit U.S. sovereignty. We already have enough problems with the federal government stomping on the states—we don't need another supernational body stomping on the U.S..

Are US payroll taxes collected by the UN? No. The carbon tax would replace the US payroll taxes as Gore suggested in his testimony to Congress. I would prefer the collection of the use of our common asset - the sky - as a carbon sink and sent directly and equally to all of the owners of the common asset in the form of a citizens dividend like they do in Alaska for oil.

I'm not familiar with Gore's carbon-tax idea, but I've heard of the one the U.N. wants collected internationally.

So if this is going to replace U.S. payroll taxes, where are they going to get all the money to pay for everything they do now? If you say "from the carbon tax," then the carbon tax is nothing more than a general sales tax (perhaps something like the H.R.25 "FairTax" bill)—because whatever they collect is going to need to be far, far in excess of the revenues required to offset CO₂ emissions.

[EthanAllen]

So if this is going to replace U.S. payroll taxes, where are they going to get all the money to pay for everything they do now? If you say "from the carbon tax," then the carbon tax is nothing more than a general sales tax (perhaps something like the H.R.25 "FairTax" bill)—because whatever they collect is going to need to be far, far in excess of the revenues required to offset CO2 emissions.

A sales tax is a tax on what is produced via human labor. The use of the sky as a carbon sink which generates negative externalities (as it subjects third parties to the effects of a private transaction) has no labor inputs - the sky is not produced via human labor.

So it is not a carbon tax on gasoline (a product of human labor), but rather a users fee for using the sky (a common asset) as a carbon sink to compensate those that you subject to externalities (forced) inorder to uphold their absolute right of self-ownership.

[mvpel]

What if the externalities are positive, not negative?

About 20,000 years ago, New Hampshire was buried under a sheet of glacial ice.  There's enormous scars of glaciation throughout the Yellowstone National Park where beautiful redwoods now stand.

The warming of the planet has been accompanied by the rise of human civilization.  What does it matter if some people have to move out of the way of a creeping sea-level rise over the course of a hundred years if vast stretches of the planet become temperate and suitable for agriculture and human habitation?

My dad got a job as a teacher instead of taking up his father's profession of being a Kansas wheat farmer because of the steady advance of farming technology.  So what?

[EthanAllen]

What does it matter if some people have to move out of the way of a creeping sea-level rise over the course of a hundred years if vast stretches of the planet become temperate and suitable for agriculture and human habitation?

Because most species of plants and animals won't be able to adapt to the quickening habitat changes as the human animal and thus will be vulnerable to mass extinction. Do I have to explain why that could become a problem for humans?

What if the externalities are positive, not negative?

Crop yields will definitely go up as carbon content increases but this will not be balanced off by the negatives which will be potentially overwhelming. Why do you support the continuation of subjecting third parties to costs that should be born by the transacting parties? Is that not against the libertarian philosophy?

My dad got a job as a teacher instead of taking up his father's profession of being a Kansas wheat farmer because of the steady advance of farming technology.  So what?

A case can be made that we are worse off as a community the farther we are all abstracted from our own food production. Read the southern agrarian, Wendell Berry, or the former National Review author Rod Dreher ("Crunchy Cons"), for more details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Berry

excerpt:
His nonfiction serves as an extended conversation about the life he values. According to Berry, the good life includes sustainable agriculture, appropriate technologies, healthy rural communities, connection to place, the pleasures of good food, husbandry, good work, local economics, the miracle of life, fidelity, frugality, reverence, and the interconnectedness of life. The threats Berry finds to this good life include: industrial farming and the industrialization of life, ignorance, hubris, greed, violence against others and against the natural world, the eroding topsoil in the United States, global economics, and environmental destruction. Berry is among the most eloquent of contemporary Christian authors, frequently referring to the Gospels, the stewardship of Creation, and peacemaking.