What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire

[CNHT]

I'm not criticizing your overall attitude towards the issue.  In fact I think it is quite reasonable (and I mean the strong 'reasonable,' being the antithesis of insanity).  But the fact is the film itself is not what you claim it to be.  There is nothing in the film, nothing, that suggests or even lends itself to any sort of sort of governmental, authoritarian solution.  I did get a 'bad vibe' from a couple of the people featured, I admit, but overall, I don't think anyone with a 'totalitarian agenda' of any scope would have much use for this particular film.  Why?  Because the overall theme is that there is no solution.  More appropriately, there are no steps that can be followed to 'fix things.' 

Doesn't matter if it's not overtly government sponsored or if the people aren't from government. They are taking their cue from the UN Agenda 21 and even if not directly, they are nothing more than useful idiots for that campaign as are all the others. Think about it.

That is a hell of a thing to say, I admit.  But from what I have seen, I don't believe that position is qualitatively different from the Free Stater attitude toward government.  Namely, that it failed/is failing, it can't be salvaged by more of the same, and even if it could, it is not worth salvaging.  Again, taken on face value, that last sentence can describe a loooooot of different ideologies.  But I used the Free Stater comparison not just for sake of familiarity.  What I see in the film (and in some of the related information posted here like The Thirty Theses) is nothing more than a call for a "Free State" type response to what is ambiguously referred to as our civilization, from the standpoint that there are alternatives.  I may think they are a bit nutso, and their point of view is decidedly bleak.  But it does not lend itself to authoritarian aspirations.  Quite the opposite, I think they are just very very pessimistic second cousins of Free Staters.  And I can't, on principle, condemn them for that.

I think you are wrong. I think they are not going to say outwardly who is behind this because you would (hopefully) reject it out of hand.

And if the earth is not worth salvaging, what then is the point then of scaring people with the gloom and doom theory?

My question to you is, after seeing that (or any such) movie, what are YOU planning to 'do' about it, if anything?

[EthanAllen]

Free-market advocates (to use a general term) wax poetic about how the 'fall' of a business is ultimately better than artificially propping it up.

And among those who are not free market advocates, notice how many great capitalists in the banking and industrial arena are now calling for government and central bank bailouts to save the financial system from the current monetary crisis.

I still think that "peak credit" will end the suburban McMansion American lifestyle sooner than peak oil will...

They are the exact same phenomena - one is the enclosure of the social commons and the other is the enclosure of the natural commons.

One is rivalrous (oil) the other (credit) is not...

They both have the same effect -  shift costs onto society (externalities) and reap benefits for individuals.

[EthanAllen]

Well, the 'solutions' offered are always for the common person to pull back on modern consumption, and even allowed themselves to be taxed more.

No, left libertarians just want to end the shifting of costs onto third parties (externalities) and bring them into the market pricing system. Is that too much to ask?

I don't need the government to tax me so they can make sure I dont' dump my oilchange into your well.

Today the cost of your car emissions are not included in the price you pay at the pump because we treat the carbon absorption capabilities of the sky as limitless.

Sorry to inform you they are limited and it is the proper and just role of governance as legitimate agency to keep individuals from imposing costs on other individuals in the form of externalities to protect the right of self-ownership. Otherwise your behavior compels me to labor...

I call them eco-terrorists not because they are attempting to harm you physically in most cases, but because they are trying to instill FEAR into people in order to acheive their goals.

And why can't left libertarians call those who force their costs onto others "anarcho-terrorists" and in this case I am being harmed physically and economically.

But if the forces of eco-terrorism are to be listened to, we'd all better do what, you tell me?

Stop forcing costs on others that compels them to labor violating their absolute right of self-ownership!

Is that too much to ask other "libertarians"? Oh, I forgot. You have no idea what a libertarian is or how to define the philosophy...

[CNHT]

Well, the 'solutions' offered are always for the common person to pull back on modern consumption, and even allowed themselves to be taxed more.

No, left libertarians just want to end the shifting of costs onto third parties (externalities) and bring them into the market pricing system. Is that too much to ask?

YES. It's called socialism, or leveling the playing field.

Today the cost of your car emissions are not included in the price you pay at the pump because we treat the carbon absorption capabilities of the sky as limitless.

Co2 is good...

Sorry to inform you they are limited and it is the proper and just role of governance as legitimate agency to keep individuals from imposing costs on other individuals in the form of externalities to protect the right of self-ownership. Otherwise your behavior compels me to labor...

As Maynard G. Krebs would shout "WORK"!

And why can't left libertarians call those who force their costs onto others "anarcho-terrorists" and in this case I am being harmed physically and economically.

I doubt that my level of consumption is anywhere near yours.

Stop forcing costs on others that compels them to labor violating their absolute right of self-ownership!

What bull.

Is that too much to ask other "libertarians"? Oh, I forgot. You have no idea what a libertarian is or how to define the philosophy...

I don't attempt to, or claim to 'define' the whole philosophy, but I do know your leftist, socialist ideas are nowhere near what any definition  of libertarianism might include.

[CNHT]

Green Hypocrisy's Gold Standard
Thursday, September 20, 2007
By Steven Milloy

Is billionaire investor George Soros using environmental pressure groups to block a gold-mining project for his own financial benefit?

Last week the Romanian government suspended the environmental review process for Canadian company Gabriel Resources' proposed gold-mining project in the Transylvanian village of Rosia Montana.

The ostensible reason for the suspension was a court challenge filed by the local anti-development activist group and the U.S.-based Open Society Institute about some paperwork unrelated to the environmental review.

As discussed previously in this column and in the documentary "Mine Your Own Business," controversy over the mine has been fabricated by what has seemed to be a leaderless and slapdash international collection of green non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, all oddly focused on this one mining project in a remote part of eastern Europe.

But the curtain is rising on the NGOs' efforts to stop the mine and it seems that Soros, through the Open Society Institute he chairs, may be at the controls for reasons that have little to do with protecting the environment.

A leaked October 2006 internal memo from an eastern European branch of Soros' Open Society Institute pleads for help from other central and eastern European NGOs to pressure the Romanian government to stop the Rosia Montana mine, which the memo emphatically (and bizarrely) refers to as a "resource curse."

The memo says the Rosia Montana project "could become a landmark case for keeping bad government in check" where "bad government," according to the tone of the memo, seems to mean any action of which Open Society disapproves.

Could this memo reflect nothing more than overzealous underlings acting without Soros' personal approval and direction? That explanation seems unlikely given Soros' April 17, 2007, letter to Wayne Murdy, the chairman and CEO of Newmont Mining Corp., a corporate shareholder in Gabriel Resources.

In the letter, Soros pressures Murdy to use Newmont's shareholder status to, in turn, pressure Gabriel Resources. "I feel it is my duty to advise you to consider carefully any further involvement with Gabriel Resources and the Rosia Montana project," Soros wrote.

This advice came with a not-so-veiled threat to Newmont's reputation: "I understand that Newmont is committed to the highest standards of environmental management, employee health and community safety. An investment in a dubious project such as Rosia Montana should not be allowed to call such admirable commitments into question," Soros closed the letter.

But what's really dubious is the game Soros seems to be playing.

The Rosia Montana is a project that is designed to comply with all European and international standards and will include a voluntary clean-up of a nearby mine that was in operation from the time of the Roman Empire until the fall of the communist Romanian government at the end of the Cold War. But while Soros and his NGO minions bemoan the proposed Rosia Montana mine, Soros has his own extensive mining interests.

According to a review by MineWeb.com, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings indicate that the Soros Fund owns $25 million worth of stock in the Aluminum Corporation of China and more than $40 million of stock in several gold-mining companies.

It's quite possible that Soros' mining interests are even more extensive since the filings do not cover his personal investments and other investments that don't require reporting to the SEC.

While Soros noted in his letter to the Newmont CEO that the Romanian legislature was considering a ban on the use of cyanide in mining, Soros recently purchased an interest in Gabriel Resources' competitor Goldcorp, which uses cyanide in its mining.

Soros' criticism of Gabriel Resources' use of cyanide is even more bizarre given that the standard for cyanide in mining waste under which the Rosia Montana project would operate is about 10 times stricter than the Nevada state standard under which Goldcorp operates.

The Soros groups in Romania oppose the relocation of part of the village of Rosia Montana, yet no similar opposition appeared when a village was moved so that the Soros-owned mining company Apex Silver could develop the San Cristobal mine in Bolivia in the 1990s.

What's with all this hypocrisy on the part of Soros? Could it be that the estimated $10 billion in gold that might be extracted from Rosia Montana would put downward pressure on gold prices and adversely impact Soros' gold investments?

Is it possible that Soros is trying to torpedo Gabriel Resources' project so that one of his own mining interests can take over the Rosia Montana mine?

I would have liked to ask George Soros these questions, but a call to the Open Society Institute was not returned.

Soros' shenanigans aside, none of this inspires confidence in the Romanian government, which needs foreign direct investment to fuel much-needed economic growth.

Although Gabriel Resources so far has complied with the rule of law, the Romanian government nevertheless seems to have bowed temporarily, at least to pressure from Soros-led NGOs.

This action should give serious pause to Western companies contemplating investing in Romania.

Despite compliance with applicable standards and substantial direct investments, Western companies may well find themselves in a "Banana Republic" atmosphere where the rule of law is disregarded, anti-development activists fronting for outside special interests call the shots and anything goes.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[alphaniner]

Doesn't matter if it's not overtly government sponsored or if the people aren't from government. They are taking their cue from the UN Agenda 21 and even if not directly, they are nothing more than useful idiots for that campaign as are all the others. Think about it.

I have thought about it, and I have come to the conclusion that it does matter.  The reason I come to this conclusion, however, is really the basis of our disagreement: I have not concluded that their claims are without merit.  This is not to say that I have come to the conclusion that said claims are with merit.  It's not a matter of I believe or I don't believe; I am, you might say, agnostic.  As far as the "useful idiots" part goes, I am partially in agreement with you.  That is, I agree that they may be used in some way, shape or form, to further an authoritarian agenda.  However, based on the fact that I have not concluded their position to be based entirely in fantasy, I cannot in good conscience oppose or condemn them on this basis.  Quite frankly, I think the FSP or any such movement may have effects which authoritarians could use to their advantage, or may result in situations which authoritarians could exploit.  However this again is predicated upon certain beliefs I hold, namely that our... well our way of living itself is supported artificially (subsidized) by the force exercised by the federal government, at least to a certain extent.  The reason I support the FSP is not necessarily because I see it as a solution, but rather as the most promising experimental alternative available.  Most importantly because it is predicated upon freedom; because it allows the greatest potential for "you go your way, I go mine."

I think you are wrong. I think they are not going to say outwardly who is behind this because you would (hopefully) reject it out of hand.

I agree that a 'fear of rejection' would be a powerful and very real reason to hide such an agenda.  However it does not reasonably follow that they must have such an agenda to be lying about.  As I said, I totally respect (again, not PC-froofroo respect but 'acknowledge significant merit in') your decision to dismiss them on this basis.  But I am not so inclined.

And if the earth is not worth salvaging, what then is the point then of scaring people with the gloom and doom theory?

1) Neither they, nor I, claimed absolutely that the earth or the species homo sapien is doomed.
2) What is the point of any truth, any fact?  What is the point of "government is inefficient"?  For that matter, what is the point of my rather hairy chest?  What is my point in pointing out this information contained in point #2?  That I have an answer for.  It is absurd to ask what is the point of a fact or a truth.

My question to you is, after seeing that (or any such) movie, what are YOU planning to 'do' about it, if anything?

Now that is a respectable question.  What I am doing, with in days of watching the movie and reading this post, is to research further some of the information (in the most general sense) that I had not before been confronted with.  Particularly, those pieces of information which I cannot dismiss offhand.  In a general sense, the effect of my beliefs which positively coincide with this film have already had an effect on my planning, in that I decided to support the FSP.  More particularly, seeing this film has actually renewed my resolve to do what I need to do to get to NH, and renewed my interest in ideas of sustainable and (dare I say) cooperative living.  Not the answer you wanted to hear, I imagine, but that is probably an answer I do not have.  I have no plan to save the world, or humanity, or civilization, if any of these are in fact in peril.  All I plan to do is live my life in the way I choose, and, at this moment, the only absolute, unerring guideline I have for that way of life is that it does not infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of anyone else.  Beyond that, I'd like to keep anything on the table.  That's why I support the FSP, afterall!

[CNHT]

I have thought about it, and I have come to the conclusion that it does matter.  The reason I come to this conclusion, however, is really the basis of our disagreement: I have not concluded that their claims are without merit.

I have. They are an emotional issue that is being used to further another agenda.

This is not to say that I have come to the conclusion that said claims are with merit.  It's not a matter of I believe or I don't believe; I am, you might say, agnostic. 

So then why are we even discussing it? Movies like that are a waste of time and not worth talking about.

As far as the "useful idiots" part goes, I am partially in agreement with you.  That is, I agree that they may be used in some way, shape or form, to further an authoritarian agenda.

That's a given if you've studied history.

However, based on the fact that I have not concluded their position to be based entirely in fantasy, I cannot in good conscience oppose or condemn them on this basis.

So my question to you is once again, what will you DO?

Quite frankly, I think the FSP or any such movement may have effects which authoritarians could use to their advantage, or may result in situations which authoritarians could exploit.  However this again is predicated upon certain beliefs I hold, namely that our... well our way of living itself is supported artificially (subsidized) by the force exercised by the federal government, at least to a certain extent.  The reason I support the FSP is not necessarily because I see it as a solution, but rather as the most promising experimental alternative available.  Most importantly because it is predicated upon freedom; because it allows the greatest potential for "you go your way, I go mine."

I don't think this has anything to do with FSP.

I agree that a 'fear of rejection' would be a powerful and very real reason to hide such an agenda.  However it does not reasonably follow that they must have such an agenda to be lying about.  As I said, I totally respect (again, not PC-froofroo respect but 'acknowledge significant merit in') your decision to dismiss them on this basis.  But I am not so inclined.

Once again, what will it cause you to DO? I dismiss it out of hand because I KNOW the agenda... Agenda 21 to be exact. It's out. There is no hiding it. It's on par with what Hitler tried to do.

1) Neither they, nor I, claimed absolutely that the earth or the species homo sapien is doomed.
2) What is the point of any truth, any fact?  What is the point of "government is inefficient"?  For that matter, what is the point of my rather hairy chest?  What is my point in pointing out this information contained in point #2?  That I have an answer for.  It is absurd to ask what is the point of a fact or a truth.

Just asking what the PURPOSE of the movie is. (My answer: because Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, and others have failed to scare enough people?)
Again what are you going to DO about it?

Now that is a respectable question.  What I am doing, with in days of watching the movie and reading this post, is to research further some of the information (in the most general sense) that I had not before been confronted with.  Particularly, those pieces of information which I cannot dismiss offhand.  In a general sense, the effect of my beliefs which positively coincide with this film have already had an effect on my planning, in that I decided to support the FSP. 

I still don't see this as in alignment with FSP or anything to do with FSP -- rather I see it as opposed to it, or people in the FSP being inclined to be opposed to it. The FSP to my knowledge is not some communist-leaning one world gov't advocate, in fact, is an advocate for less gov't or so I thought.
I think you and some others are very confused about what the FSP stands for.

More particularly, seeing this film has actually renewed my resolve to do what I need to do to get to NH, and renewed my interest in ideas of sustainable and (dare I say) cooperative living.

UGH. Coopertaive living? FSP is not a co-op, it's an individualist movement.

Not the answer you wanted to hear, I imagine, but that is probably an answer I do not have.  I have no plan to save the world, or humanity, or civilization, if any of these are in fact in peril.  All I plan to do is live my life in the way I choose, and, at this moment, the only absolute, unerring guideline I have for that way of life is that it does not infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of anyone else.  Beyond that, I'd like to keep anything on the table.  That's why I support the FSP, afterall!

And what I am telling you is, the authors of this movie seek another goal, that is likely in conflict with the above stated.
That you can't see this is mindboggling.

Have you read the UN's Agenda 21? Or any of their dribble? I know it's enough to make one sick, but please go read their website. The amount of stuff they have on there for planning is enough to make you know what they see as their plan for authoritarian rule to 'save the world'.

[EthanAllen]

YES. It's called socialism, or leveling the playing field.

How is requiring you not to impose costs on me socialism? It is called libertarianism.

Co2 is good...

In this case, too much of a good thing is bad.

I don't attempt to, or claim to 'define' the whole philosophy

You don't even know the fundamental tenet...

[CNHT]

You don't even know the fundamental tenet...

I never claimed to 'know' the fundamental tenet because

1) there isn't one
2) I don't care
3) I don't call myself libertarian

But you harp on it as if it's the basis and end all be all of every argument.

As SO'H once said, "Frank(ly) my dear, I don't give a damn!"

[EthanAllen]

You don't even know the fundamental tenet...

I never claimed to 'know' the fundamental tenet because...there isn't one

There most certainly is.

[E-ville]

I kind of look at this end of the empire thing, as being good!

Because I'm prepared for the worst..  all these welfare lovers will die off because there so dependent on the feds to help them though there entire life from birth to death.. they will be so lost once the shit hits the fan..  The biggest things is getting away from the mobs for a few months then it will be easy sailing.. because all the idiots that don't know how to hunt or grow food or even know what a stockpile of food and water is worth in bad times, these sheeple will die off.. look at Katrina.. the smart ones got the hell out, they knew they were in trouble and left , the stupid, "oh the government will save us" ones died.. this was  small scale and with a place to go.. as the empire falls the only safe places will be remote areas where people need to really work to survive.. these people will stay in there big cities that only have enough food for a few days and then they will die there.

Its thinning of the heard of steeple in my opinion..  It's a bad thing but in the long run its nature taking  its roll and evolution at work... the smarter and more adaptable survive and the others parrish. leaving only the more adaptable to bread creating a stronger generation.

[EthanAllen]

I kind of look at this end of the empire thing, as being good!

Because I'm prepared for the worst..  all these welfare lovers will die off because there so dependent on the feds to help them though there entire life from birth to death.. they will be so lost once the shit hits the fan..  The biggest things is getting away from the mobs for a few months then it will be easy sailing.. because all the idiots that don't know how to hunt or grow food or even know what a stockpile of food and water is worth in bad times, these sheeple will die off.. look at Katrina.. the smart ones got the hell out, they knew they were in trouble and left , the stupid, "oh the government will save us" ones died.. this was  small scale and with a place to go.. as the empire falls the only safe places will be remote areas where people need to really work to survive.. these people will stay in there big cities that only have enough food for a few days and then they will die there.

Its thinning of the heard of steeple in my opinion..  It's a bad thing but in the long run its nature taking  its roll and evolution at work... the smarter and more adaptable survive and the others parrish. leaving only the more adaptable to bread creating a stronger generation.

You think people in the city are just going to lay down and die? I don't think so!

[alphaniner]

So then why are we even discussing it?

Because we are each capable of and willing to do so.  Is that not enough of a reason to discuss something upon which we disagree?

I think you and some others are very confused about what the FSP stands for.

I think the FSP stands for the maximization of personal liberty.  Or at least, that is how I would summarize my attraction to it.  I think many people misunderstand just what that entails.  It means that some people are going to make choices which others would find utterly, absolutely inconceivable.  And that is a good thing.

[CNHT]

I think the FSP stands for the maximization of personal liberty.  Or at least, that is how I would summarize my attraction to it.  I think many people misunderstand just what that entails.  It means that some people are going to make choices which others would find utterly, absolutely inconceivable.  And that is a good thing.

And I think these movies are trying to get people to think in such a way that they would be giving up their liberties.
And that's a bad thing!

[E-ville]

You think people in the city are just going to lay down and die? I don't think so!

No there going to fight it out in the city , the smart ones will survive of the less fortunate.. I dodnt mean people in cities wer ejust going to lye down and keel over.. you can safe gaurd your self in a city pretty well..

My point was that people that rely on government are going to die off as they have none of the needed prep and or skills to survive more than a few weeks.  the nes that are prepaired and have survival skills will survive no matter there location.