“Sustainable justice” = redistribution of scarcity

The UN Rio+20 agenda means less freedom, happiness, true justice and human rights progress

Guest post by Paul Driessen and Duggan Flanakin

Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised that his Administration would “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He gave a clue to exactly what he had in mind when he told now-congressional candidate Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Not necessarily – especially when activists, regulators, politicians and ruling elites do all they can to ensure there is less and less wealth to spread around.

Just this week, the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives released a new report to the United Nations Rio+20 Earth Summit on Sustainable Development. The executive summary of No Future Without Justice begins with the heading, “The World Is in Need of Fundamental Change.” The document then offers “solutions,” which include “universal fiscal equalization” and a “massive and absolute decoupling of well-being from resource extraction and consumption.”

The 18-member Group includes no Americans – but condemns the US and other governments for their dedication to economic growth, rather than wealth redistribution, and demands that governments play a key role in promoting “sustainability” and welfare. They insist that all governments provide universal access to public health care, guaranteed state allowances for every child, guaranteed state support for the unemployed and underemployed, and basic universal pensions and universal social security.

It is, in short, the total nanny state – but with little or no resource extraction or economic growth to support it. In other words, it guarantees sustained injustice and redistribution of increasing scarcity.

The Group admits that human civilization “will still need some form of growth in large parts of the world, to expand the frontiers of maximum available resources for poor countries.” However, the massive investments needed to shift to a totally renewable energy and resource-based economy will require “massive de-growth (shrinkage) of products, sectors and activities that do not pass the sustainability test” – as devised by them, affiliated organizations and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Key financial support for the push toward “sustainability” includes a “greener” and “more progressive” tax system featuring a financial transaction tax, abolition of subsidies for all but renewable energy, cutting military spending while dramatically increasing “stimulus” spending, a compensation scheme to pay off “climate debts” to poor countries supposedly impacted by hydrocarbon-driven climate change, a new regulatory framework for financial markets, a financial product safety commission, and still more regulations for hedge funds and private equity funds. The Group also demands public control of financial rating agencies and a government takeover of international accounting standards.

To ensure that “sustainable development” permeates every aspect of society, the Group proposes a new “Sherpa” for Sustainability (with cabinet rank), a parliamentary committee on policy coherence for sustainability, a UN Sustainability Council, a Universal Periodic Review on Sustainability, and an Ombudsman for Intergenerational Justice and Future Generations. It also proposes an International Panel on Sustainability that builds on the “success” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Of course, guiding all this would be the world’s premiere political body and bastion of freedom, fairness, democracy and human rights – the UN General Assembly.

To guide this “fundamental” shift toward the sustainability paradigm, the Group laid down eight principles – the key being the “precautionary principle,” which forbids any activity that might involve risk or “do harm.” Its own sustainability prescriptions are, of course, exempted from any reviews under the precautionary principle.

The objective, they state, is to build economies that drastically limit carbon emissions, energy consumption, primary resource extraction, waste generation, and air and water pollution. Society must also stop the asserted and computer-modeled loss of species and ruination of ecosystems.

All this naturally will require mandatory changes in consumption patterns and lifestyles (at least for the common folk), and the recognition that work (unlike capital) is not a production factor. Indeed, says the Group, work is not even a commodity. Moreover, only “decent” work qualifies under the sustainability paradigm. (While “decent work” is never defined, it presumably includes backbreaking sunup-to-sundown labor at subsistence farming, which under the Group’s agenda would be called “traditional” or “organic” farming and would not be replaced by modern mechanized agriculture.)

What is the source of all of this gobbledygook? Agenda 21, the centerpiece of the original Rio Earth Summit – which is being perpetuated, refined and redefined at parallel proceedings in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, while the main sustainability discussions are ongoing in Rio de Janeiro.

Agenda 21 states, for example, that “achieving the goals of environmental quality and sustainable development will require … changes in consumption patterns.” This too would be achieved under UN auspices because, as Earth Summit creator Maurice Strong has explained, the days of national sovereignty are over, and the world needs to embrace a system of wealth transfer to ensure environmental security.

In short, “sustainable development” is a system that requires a redefinition of business activity, away from the pursuit of personal profit – and of government activity, away from the pursuit of individual happiness and justice – and toward the pursuit of societal good, as defined by activists and the UN.

Simply put, as Brian Sussman points out in his new book, Eco-Tyranny, the ultimate goal of those who endorse the sustainability paradigm is to expunge “the most precious” rights expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

The Agenda 21 and sustainability paradigm also rejects and undermines Adam Smith’s belief that mankind’s natural tendency toward self-interest, profit and self-improvement results in greater prosperity, opportunity, health, welfare and justice for all.

Most of all, the UN/Maurice Strong/ Civil Society Reflection Group vision is merely the latest embodiment of Plato’s Republic. Under Plato’s thesis, an educated, elite, but benevolent and mythical, ruling class acts on the belief that its self-appointed philosopher kings have all the right answers, and do not require the Consent of the Governed. The rest of humanity must fall into lockstep or face the consequences; however the results will be exemplary.

Unfortunately, as Alexander Hamilton observed, men are not angels. Moreover, it defies experience and common sense to suppose that the elitist UN, UNEP and environmental activist community will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology – or benevolence toward the humans they seek to govern.

____________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org and www.CFACT.tv) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Duggan Flanakin is director of research and international programs for CFACT.

Advertisements

206 thoughts on ““Sustainable justice” = redistribution of scarcity

  1. Reminds me of a story I recently heard from a student who when asked by the head of charity who they expected to give to charities responded – ” well gen x are too greedy and wealthy people are too busy hoarding money so that leaves gen ys and baby boomers”, in other words students and retirees. In reality the people who gave most were gen x and wealthy people (funnily enough).
    Here’s the thing – most people in developed countries are working to get paid whatever their employer is willing to pay them. The employers sell the widgets or whatever that the employees make for whatever people are prepared to pay for them.
    Any concerted attempt at fiscal equalization would remove fiscal incentive from this system to the extent that the ability to generate wealth to pass on to third world countries would be lost. In truth, people in third world countries would be no better off if the entire GDP of the G 20 were moved to them today – they have no means of using those funds for ongoing wealth creation and it would simply bankrupt the G20.

  2. “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
    Au contraire. When you take the wealth from those who created it and give it to the hoi polloi, they either piss it up against the wall or squander it on trinkets from China. The only beneficiaries are brewery owners and Chinese manufacturers and manufacturing workers. On the other hand, if you leave it with the wealth creators, guess what? They use it to create more wealth, in the process creating more jobs (real jobs, not green ones or government sector rule policing and paper shuffling).

  3. The 18-member Group includes no Americans – but condemns the US and other governments for their dedication to economic growth, rather than wealth redistribution, and demands that governments play a key role in promoting “sustainability” and welfare.
    Translation for the politically-impaired: “Creating wealth is bad. Redistributing wealth is good.”
    And redistributing wealth is good because it’s easier for the middlemen — the NGO group functionaries self-appointing as such — to skim money in transit. And when all the wealth is redistributed, everyone will be equally poor, except, of course, for the middlemen…

  4. Pol Pot gone global? Because believe me, the Rio aganed and Agenda 21 embody the philosophy of the Khmer Rouge. The killing fields are not far away…

  5. These people in their tight little world obviously see “1984” as a blueprint, not a warning. Unbelievable!

  6. This is just another ‘-ism’, there is lots of them which sound great to the simple minded and those who seek to exploit/rule them, e.g: communism, socialism, islamic fundamentalism, fascism, etc.
    They all sound great in theory and they all have the same common denominators: they don’t work, they destroy prosperity and wealth, they require the end of freedom and choice in order to function, they are intolerant of all criticism and they are all ruled by a self-imposed ‘enlightened elite’,
    In essence, all ‘-isms’ are cults, just like the CAGW cult.

  7. I would love to use this material in my local battles, but can’t without solid evidence to defend the claims – please provide links to the source document(s) for the many quotes above.
    Thanks
    JK

  8. Unfortunately, as Alexander Hamilton observed, men are not angels. Moreover, it defies experience and common sense to suppose that the elitist UN, UNEP and environmental activist community will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology – or benevolence toward the humans they seek to govern.
    —————-
    Yep!
    So which masters are Paul and Duggan beholden to? And then we can ask the question whether those masters “will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology”.

  9. Were they mad, they’d be easier to derail. No, it’s worse, much worse than mad – it’s utterly terrible and it’s a steady, calculating, profoundly compromising, Orwellian ‘Doublethink’ expansion of the ‘Ministry-of-We-Know-Best. For example:
    ‘A crucial advance has been the United Nations’ quiet adoption in April of a framework of agreed concepts and definitions for green accounting that can be applied in any country. It took two decades to develop but stops short of valuing complex ecosystems. “The accounting is not pie in the sky anymore,” said economist Peter Bartelmus, who led the original U.N. effort.’
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/17/accounting-for-natural-wealth-gains-world-traction/#ixzz1yEHqPBOZ
    ‘Sustainable Justice’ is the ultimate denial of a dynamic, unequal, aspiring humanity. It is impossible to envisage a static, utopian world of this nature. It can only lead to the rebellious assertion of individual rights, national identity and freedom.

  10. Sorry, I can’t agree that a certain amount of wealth redistribution would be a bad thing – though I don’t think there’s much danger of it actually happening. I think the idea Obama is interested in spreading the riches around is laughable. He serves the interest of the tiny minority of super-rich as most world leaders do and always have done.He’s just mouthing platitudes and making promises he has no intention of keeping – which is his hallmark in everything.
    But what’s wrong with universal health care? I’ve lived in the US and the UK and I know which one I’d prefer to get sick in. It doesn’t have to mean a “nanny state” and when people talk like that they’re being as irrational as any Warmist.

  11. Reblogged this on thewordpressghost and commented:
    WOW!
    Watts brings us a great blog, this time it was written by two guest bloggers.
    They pulled key phrases out of the UN Rio+20 meeting agenda.
    And it is scary.
    In a nutshell, we are told that the first world must be shrunk. Then the first world must be heavily taxed to subsidize the growth of the third world.
    Scary stuff.
    I hope you enjoy it.
    Ghost.

  12. lazyteenager sez….

    And I have to wonder: were there actually people who cried ‘power to the people!’, right before Che put a bullet into the back of their head?
    I guess that one just got answered…

  13. Define ‘sustainable development’.
    The idea that you live without actually depleting any resource is impossible. We are able to live to our standards because of technological development over the years since the 1700’s and the industrial revolution. Resource use has changed. Imagine owning a personal computer based on 1950’s technology. No I can’t either as it would be as big as your house and still have a few kilobytes of memory and a speed of seconds rather than the microseconds now. Technology has not only reduced sizes but vastly improved performance and capabilities.
    Technology will enable us to manufacture motor fuel from methane, which we can do now but there is no real incentive at the moment to do so. It is also vital to remember that improved development reduces child mortality rates, reduces birth rates through improved health care, hygiene and total living standards but it takes energy to do this and it is the environmentalists and conservationists who are starving the third world of this vital resource in the name of saving the planet.
    Utter Stupidity.

  14. I suggest that national petitions be started in Canada and the US that mandate withdrawal from the UN. Then we can kick the leeches out of NYC and send them packing to Europe.
    The Europeans have always resented the American because we have no proper breeding, never went to finishing school, ain’t got manners and culture. We just the new kids on the block in a very old neighborhood!

  15. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    “But what’s wrong with universal health care? I’ve lived in the US and the UK and I know which one I’d prefer to get sick in. It doesn’t have to mean a “nanny state” and when people talk like that they’re being as irrational as any Warmist.”
    British teeth. 9 months waiting time for a hip joint. You sure you want that?

  16. quidsapio, seems like your mind has been subject to a huge amount of redistribution, before you got a chance to use it. Also am sure now it is sustainable. Too iuf you are not a Warmist, I am queasy that you are not on that side, given your irrationality

  17. Sorry US we don’t need you at RIO+20 because the Australian PM G Gillard is going to give a 90minute speach on how to destroy your economy and control your poplution buy hitting them with a $23 ton carbon tax. and let imports of food flood the country and put everybody on the dole

  18. LazyTeenager says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:05 am
    “So which masters are Paul and Duggan beholden to? And then we can ask the question whether those masters “will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology”.”
    Et tu, LazyTeenager? Let me guess. A small cog in the warmist machine; an XBox button pusher.

  19. Sounds a bit like this:
    “We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”
    National Socialist professor of biology, Ernst Lehmann.
    http://www.theatheistconservative.com/2010/01/22/green-roots-the-origin-of-ecology/

  20. You can always tell if people are in fantasy land when, for example, they don’t want mining, but still use minerals every single day of their lives. It’s pure fantasy.
    Let me say a few thoughts on mining, which can cut through some of the ideological BS associated with ‘sustainability’.
    —all societies required minerals to function, but minerals degrade and rust, and there is no mine on earth which is individually and indefinitely sustainable, so there is no such thing as perfectly sustainable, individual societies.
    -we can’t run out of minerals on a world level (the earth’s crust is too big), but individual areas can run out of minerals, which means that no mineral-producing area is perfectly sustainable, and therefore no society is perfectly sustainable which obtains benefits from them. (This is partly why the Spainish went to the Americas).
    -if ore runs out at a particular mine, there is no more (so there is no such thing as permanent employment),
    -mineral resources are extremely unevenly distributed, and this single fact means people and societies are never going to achieve total social equality. Geography, in general, is a greater factor than most other things, in limiting social equality. There is no such thing as ‘sustainable justice’.
    – miners cant ‘invent’ new sources of minerals just when they want to, so no perpetual motion or perpetual energy (sustainable) machines,
    -everybody uses minerals (even the greenest of the greens), but hardly anybody appreciates them, and most arguments against mining are based on values which are usually ideological, not scientific.
    -miners can’t arrange the minerals to go where they want them to (so no socialist ordering of resources),
    -we don’t know where all the minerals are, so there is a constant need to conduct R and D (practical inventiveness, necessity the mother of invention etc etc), which also means resource nationalism doesn’t work, (same as any other kind of extreme socialism)
    -mineral resources don’t follow state/nationalist boundaries (so no rampant nationalism),
    -mineral resources can be extemely hard to find, so this generally requires free market forces.
    -just another throught, the idea of evolution didn’t come from the socialist bureaucrats (why would it- constant change, variation in populations, uncertainty), it came from the science of geology (uniformitarianism and gradualism applied to biology by C. Darwin and R. Wallace). The science of geology, and mining, has always recognised constant change and natural adaptability, the socialist bureaucrats have rarely recognised it. But because miners are seen as lower in the social stata, nobody has historically ever listened to them, except when their science-geology became fashionable amongst the upper classes in the 19th century Britain, and then look what happened.
    -mineral resources aren’t usually classified by governments and greens as ‘natural resources’ even though that is exactly what they are scientifically, because mineral extraction doesn’t sit well with green ideology-its hard work, its hard to find, its unevenly distributed, it requires an open market, it creates rich and poor, minerals can’t be arranged to be somewhere, there is no permanent employment or nanny state, etc etc. (Volcanos are the same in not sitting well with greens-look at the ‘damage’ they do to the environment, all naturally.)
    Mineral research and extraction is particularly acute in sorting through some of the ideological BS because the miners have to deal with the practical reailities of life in the ‘environment’, every day of their lives, rather than with some sort of state-funded bureaucratic ideology.
    I propose that people who want to stop or reduce resource extraction:
    1) stop or reduce their use of minerals (including phones, cutlery, planes etc etc)
    2) take out of their salary that proportion which is paid by mining-alot of the greens and bureacrats would then have to immediately reduce their salary, look at how long that idea would last.
    Just some thoughts, as I have to deal with this kind of thing often.

  21. I just sent this to Anthony and a few other friends.
    IS THIS TRUE?
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9795
    John O’Sullivan: UN Climate Scientists Plead for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution
    Friday, June 15th 2012, 8:56 AM EDT
    Climate researchers working for the United Nations have issued an astonishing plea for immunity from prosecution. Government-funded personnel sought the ruling on the eve of the latest round of international climate talks scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 20, 2012).
    The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issued it’s formal request for immunity from prosecution to “protect” researchers who have provided “evidence” supportive of the man-made global warming scare story. The perplexing plea will likely reverberate throughout the general scientific community as further affirmation that many climate scientists were not conducting honest research after all. John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, questioned the motives, “The creeping expansion of claims for privileges and immunities protection for UN activities is symptomatic of a larger problem.”
    High Price of Get Out of Jail Free Card
    Especially worrisome is that in conjunction with the application for a sweeping “get out of jail free card” for all it’s scientists the UNFCCC is remorselessly promoting a mammoth Green Climate Fund, intended to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year for projects to lower global greenhouse gases. At the Rio conference the UN plans to trumpet a new draft planning and agenda document, “The Future We Want,” that will compel American families to pay $1,325 per year to “stop” climate change.
    Bolton, alongside many savvy taxpayers, is right to worry when such an organization seeking to manage a $100 billion a year fund based on dodgy science is at the same time demanding immunity from prosecution. Can you think of a better recipe for corruption?
    Worse yet, climatologists have never provided any credible evidence to back their doomsaying claims that Earth’s climate is ‘catastrophically’ warming due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. Indeed, if anything the most telling graph of U.S. temperatures, as per the latest NOAA/NCDC temperature dataset, shows cooling for the last 15 years (H/T: C3Headlines). Regardless of all such facts the Obama Administration strongly supports the Green Climate Fund and its tax-hiking objective.
    Climate Fraud Akin to Banking Fraud?
    But critics argue the worst climate crime has been inflicted upon the poorest among us who are carrying the can for the global experiment into biofuels – Big Green’s alternative to CO2-emitting oil and coal. The least well off in our communities have been hit hardest by increased food and energy prices as biofuel production supplants food production – all at a time when well-funded climatologists continue to oppose any and all independent auditing of their computer climate models. It is little wonder such ‘scientists’ are increasingly cast in the same shadow as Wall Street banksters. Worse still, latest evidence from independent researchers here, here and here proves CO2 is not the bad guy and the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), the very cornerstone of global warming science, probably doesn’t exist.
    Importantly, an increasing number of scientists are affirming the new findings which demonstrate it’s not possible for CO2 – or any so-called “greenhouse” gas – to “trap” energy in Earth’s atmosphere – a frequently cited claim of global warming alarmists. Critics of the GHE say the latest findings comport with satellite data and indicate that Earth emits as much infrared heat as it receives from the sun and thereby proves there is no magical atmospheric effect in play making our planet warmer than it would otherwise be. Despite these groundbreaking new findings dozens of government agencies are avoiding addressing them. Instead they remain contentedly clamped to the teat of the climate cash cow issuing ever more apocalyptic statements while insisting that our atmosphere really does act “like a greenhouse.”
    Shamelessly, these “scientists” sustain the sham wholesale in their well funded institutions where, despite billions in funding, they still use outdated computer programs that model Earth as a flat disk lit by constant and frigid twilight. This government “flat earth modeling technique” has persisted since the early 1980′s when computers had far less processing power than today. But by stubbornly keeping their antiquated calculating method this embattled clique of climatologists think they can continue to get away with a fudge factor in their numbers that contrives an additional heating anomaly which they claim is the “trapped” energy of the GHE.
    But 21st Century satellite and computing power is leaving the charlatans with no room to hide their bad accounting practices. For too long this tight-knit climate science community has gotten away with conducting a phony debate that only disputed the amount of warming from CO2. Never did they question the so-called “settled science” of the GHE – a monumental intellectual travesty.
    Adept critics say that by sticking to their outmoded flat earth physics formula climatologists thus avoid the otherwise inconvenient fact that the sun actually shines on only half the planet. Is this important? Yes, because in our age of super computers, to continue to treat Earth as if it were a flat disk is a needless statistical anomaly (or perhaps a deliberate trick?). Climatologists thereby hide the fact that all gases in our atmosphere help to distribute solar energy around the globe and thus cool our planet. Without such gases the sun-facing side of our earth would become unbearably hot and the dark-side of our earth would be unbearably cold; an undeniable moderating effect by those gases (including carbon dioxide) that counters the pseudo scientific claims of the UN that more CO2 in the atmosphere results in more warming.
    As eminent South African professor, Will Alexander recently stated (14 May 2012):
    “The real tragedy is that the global warming community have showed no signs of changing their ways and entering into multidisciplinary discussions in a field where they have neither knowledge nor experience. Do they not realise that they have antagonised those of us in the engineering and applied sciences to the extent that we no longer trust their motives based on their attempts to silence all those who have contrarian views, and their deliberate departures from the truth?“
    Freethinkers Oppose Flat Earth Climate Physics
    Independent scientists such as those at Principia Scientific International (PSI) echo Professor Alexander’s words. It is concerned specialists from outside scientific disciplines and better skilled in math and thermodynamics who are the most outspoken. They say there is no excuse for the continued use of any computer model that treats Earth as a flat disk. They argue it is this ‘flat Earth physics,’ left uncorrected for so long, that has grown like a cancer infecting all corners of the infant science of ‘climatology.’
    Now the penny drops with the UNFCCC. They understand that climate scientists have failed to prove their man-made global hypothesis and are facing increased legal scrutiny. Lawyers are sharpening their legal minds to dissect from the UN’s bloated climate science body the malignant tumor of man-made global warming. If the UNFCCC legal immunity gambit can be resisted we may yet see criminal prosecutions for the worst offenders in the climate fraud.
    Regardless of any such remedy Third World starvation – a byproduct of asinine international climate policy over biofuels – will further increase as basic food staples continue to disappear. Such “progress” inflicted on us by the climate strategists to needlessly cut carbon emissions, has already accounted for the irrecoverable loss of six percent of all arable land. Thanks to the greed and hubris of a rich elite eager to profit from trade in carbon credits, global hunger skyrockets unabated and the masses remain otherwise duped by a dilettante mainstream media that still wants to believe it was for the noble cause of “sustainability” and “saving the planet.”

  22. Quidsaipo~ Not to pile on, but, wasn’t there an 80-year-old woman who was told her carbon footprint was too large, due to a two-mile drive to her doctor?
    And didn’t she then have to go looking for a doctor even further away?
    As others have said, are you sure that’s what you want?

    Here in Canada (I am a US citizen, wife is Canadian, we had to choose which direction to go in), there was a story some months back, of a woman who needs a Stent. Thanks to Canada’s ‘universal’ health care, the town she lives in decided they didn’t have the money for it. And that is just one of thousands of such medical miracles across Canada.
    Now That’s sustainable Injustice, don’t you think?

  23. Usually the proponents of wealth distribution are government employees paid from the public purse such as politicians, academics, teachers, employees of the publicly funded media outlets such as the ABC and the BBC. Those who generate the wealth that supports these government paid proponents are usually too busy growing their businesses and providing jobs to have much time for conferences in Rio. As for Lazy Teenager, will you tell us to which masters you are beholden?

  24. The phrase “a massive and absolute decoupling of well-being from resource extraction and consumption” equals doublespeak for aiming to cripple physical production (consumption).
    Economic prosperity primarily comes from physical goods. The top living expenses (residences, food, electricity, transportation, etc.) are predominately such. In fact, prosperity or not is mostly the ratio of one’s income to how much an amount of them cost. But, unless stopped by the efforts of smarter and less misanthropic individuals, these guys would have mankind’s electricity generation be limited to the current 2 TW average or decline below it (compared to 200000 TW of sunlight intersected by Earth and 400,000,000,000,000 TW output by the Sun), and everything from desalination of seawater to usage of materials in construction be crippled by their ideology founded on mathematical illiteracy, in utter contrast to the real picture, discussed here for instance:
    http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
    Although superficially seeming unrelated, one of the great tragedies of post-WWII history is the implicit decision to never spend 1/1000th of GDP on directly trying to accomplish the first precursor step required to start a true Space Age, which would be to no longer consider acceptable launch systems having costs around 1000x the basic propellant costs (mostly liquid oxygen costing cents per pound) in favor of rather funding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram or http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm or the last part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun#Potential_uses or anything comparable for orders of magnitude change. Without a positive public vision of the future, the likes of these guys try to fill in a negative vision, and, if unchecked, will rot civilization.

  25. “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
    When you take wealth from one person and hand it to someone else, you remove the incentive for the first person to gain wealth in the first place. Hence in a Socialist world, all means of production must be owned by the state, with the people reduced to mere ants working to Government-set targets.
    “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
    But it’s someone else’s wealth being spread around. There’s a word for that: it’s called Theft.
    “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
    Imagine two brothers. Little Johnny goes out delivering papers, washing cars, and doing various odd jobs around the house for pocket money – and he’s reaping the rewards of his labour. In a few months he might even afford that new X-Box. His brother – little Billy – he’s alright, but he’s somewhat less driven than Johnny, has less ambition, and is happy to spend his free time playing with friends and watching TV – normal kid stuff.
    Dad is a socialist. He believes in such things as “redistribution of wealth” and “universal fiscal equalization.” Johnny’s ready to buy his prized X-Box, but Dad can’t bear the idea that one kid will have more than the other – so he demands that Johnny hands over a proportion of his wealth to Billy. Billy feels a bit guilty, but being human doesn’t look this gift horse in the mouth. Johnny can no longer afford the X-Box and becomes disillusioned. Why even bother? He’s learned that gaining wealth is too hard because Pops just hands so much over to Billy, and he’s learned that personal success is clearly not a thing to aspire to.
    Billy doesn’t get any more money out of Johnny, because Johnny doesn’t work any more, there’s no point. Besides, he gets a roof over his head and three squares a day for free – he’ll settle for that. And so there is finally genuine fiscal equalization of the two brothers. Both have f… all.
    No one in their right mind would really bring up their kids this way. And yet socialists think it’s a good way to run society? Bloody arrogant fools.

  26. Jim
    The complete report and Executive Summary of “No future without justice“ are available at the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives website (http://www.reflectiongroup.org/).
    According to their summary “The report calls for fundamental changes to tackle the root causes of the multiple crises in the world and demands:”
    “to draw lessons from the environmental, social and economic crises, to look beyond conventional development concepts and goals and to rethink fundamentally the models and measures of development and social progress – in the North and the South. Rio+20 and the emerging discussions on a post-2015 development agenda provide a unique window of opportunity to reconsider the current development paradigm and to changing the course towards a holistic, rights-based development approach that is based on equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.”
    “Governments failed to bring their policies into line with the agreed principles of sustainability and human rights. Instead, policies are still too often sectorally fragmented and misguided, with an overreliance on economic growth and self-regulation of the ‘markets’. New concepts like ‘green growth’ are at best attempts to treat the symptoms of the problems without tackling their root causes. Instead, fundamental changes at three levels are needed:
    • Changes in the mindset, the guiding concepts and indicators of development and progress.
    • Changes in fiscal and regulatory policies at national, regional and international levels in order to effectively overcome social inequalities and the degradation of nature and to strengthen sustainable economies.
    • Changes in institutions and governance mechanisms at national, regional and international levels.”

  27. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT = AGenda 21 as far as I can work out which means a one world banking system with a one world governemnt all delivered by an unelected load of you know what’s out of the UN!

  28. These demands are certainly not unique to the “Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives”! From the “High Level Panel’s” Future We Want to the current “Pre-Conference Informal Consultations ” – as opposed to the multitude of previously held “Informal Informal Consultations” [yes, you read that right: “Informal Informal”] on the “outcome document” – they keep cropping up all over the place! I guess that’s how they build “consensus” these days!
    Here are some “book-end” excerpts from the quasi-official report of the June 18 deliberations:

    During Monday’s Pre-Conference Informal Consultations, negotiating groups considered IFSD, MOI, green economy, oceans, SDGs, energy, Sections I and II, and Section V.A. Late Monday night, delegates were informed that a plenary would convene at 11:00 pm, to discuss a new version of the outcome document. At 2:18 am, Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota informed the delegates who were waiting in the plenary hall that a final text would be available by 7:00 am, that a plenary would convene at 10:30 am, and that he would announce to the press that the elaboration of the text has been concluded.
    […]
    With plans for a late night plenary to focus minds and suggest that red lines would have to give way to deadlines, participants speculated on the likely outstanding issues that may require high-level trade-offs in a series of packages. Some expected them to involve issues such as: the SDGs; fossil fuel subsidies; IFSD and UNEP; technology transfer; reproductive rights; and sustainable development financing options.

    IOW, everything but the kitchen sink is being thrown into the Rio+20 outcome document mix! And people are always at their best – with all their wits about them – at late night meetings after a long day, aren’t they?!
    For the acronymically challenged:
    IFSD = Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development
    SDGs = Sustainable Development Goals
    MOI [Sorry, can’t put my mouse on that one, at the moment; but suffice it to say that it is related to “mechanisms to deliver financing and technology transfer” ]
    UNEP = United Nations Environment Program [Parent of the IPCC, UNFCCC and a gaziilion other acronymic offspring.]
    There’s also a group called ECOSOC which has an NGO Branch … which, in essence is the doorway that NGOs pass through in order to obtain their “consultative status” And there’s a movement afoot to increase their role!
    I’m sure that you’ll be as pleased as I was to learn that – in addition to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and the Human Rights Council – ECOSOC also “feeds” the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. And one of this Commission’s “mandated priority areas” is:

    Promoting the role of criminal law in protecting the environment

    I would guess that it’s probably a very short hop – or a mere skip and/or jump – from this “mandated priority area” to “sustainable justice”.
    Btw, there’s also a big push to elevate the status of the UNEP within the UN “family”; it is worth noting that the UNEP has the distinction of being the UN’s highest-flying carbon-emitting agency. It’s also worth noting that in all the papers I’ve slogged through since January when they began gearing up for Rio, “climate change” is being given very short shrift!
    I do have several links to posts on my blog for all this (with links to source material) … but they’d probably land this comment in the spam-trap!

  29. This kind of story always reminds me of the Bert and I story from Maine, Downeast Socialism from
    Marshall Dodge and Robert Bryan:
    Eban Robay went into Boston to the Tremont Temple on Saturday night to hear Norman Thomas speak about socialism. Next Monday he was preaching socialism to Enoch Turner over the back fence:
    “You know, Enoch,” he was sayin’, “under socialism people share everything.”
    Enoch then asked, “You mean, Eban, if you had two farms you’d give me one of them?” “Ayup, Enoch, if I had two farms, I’d give you one of them.”
    “And Eban, if you had two hay rakes you’d give me one of them?” “Ayup, Enoch, if I had two hay rakes I’d give you one of them.”
    “Now Eban, if you had two hogs would you give me one of them?” “Darn you Enoch, you knows I got two hogs!”

  30. I have to say, I’m not too concerned about an agenda like that. I’d be much more concerned if they’d actually proposed something reasonable. Plainly, an agenda like that, doesn’t stand a snowflake’s chance in hell of being accepted. It’s just a great example of the environmentalist bunker mentality in action. Another self-inflicted wound …
    Pointman

  31. They want to “spread the wealth” and at the same time destroy the ability to create it. It is both diabolical and madness at the same time. This is the logical extension of attacking “carbon”, the basis for all life. The end result of their schemes will result in untold human misery, loss of human dignity and freedom, and millions of deaths. Perhaps that is what they want.

  32. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    “But what’s wrong with universal health care? I’ve lived in the US and the UK and I know which one I’d prefer to get sick in. It doesn’t have to mean a “nanny state” and when people talk like that they’re being as irrational as any Warmist.”
    Man, what’s wrong is this is a Government monopoly forced on us against our will with our own money, because Government knows what’s best for us. You may value your health, but you obviously don’t value personal freedom.

  33. Whenever the the word “justice” is prefaced by an adjective, look for the agenda, there will always be one. Justice in and of itself requires no elaboration – it exists, or it doesn’t. Justice with an adjective describing it means special treatment for someone at the expense of someone else. Justice, by definition, can not be dispensed at the expense of anyone, or it’s simply not justice. The socialist left needs to be called out on this every time they trot out their “qualified” justices. Justice for whom? At the expense of whom? Who speaks for justice for those who’ve had theirs taken away to satisfy the agenda?

  34. As was so often the case, H. L. Mencken succinctly nailed the phenomenon:
    “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

  35. @DirkH – having to pay for an ambulance, x-rays, CAT scans because you are unlucky enough to have an accident; having to re-mortgage your home to finance healthcare because your insurance decided you had a pre-existing condition; you want that?
    At least in the UK (I live here) you can get your hip replacement free of charge; in the US if you can’t pay you don’t get it at all.
    And “British teeth”? Please. We don’t do lazy-thinking and cliches here! We leave that to Skeptical Science.

  36. I have always thought that socialism is about the re-distribution of the cake and capitalism is about making a bigger cake. History shows us that the best outcome for the “common man” is capitalism with some degree of legislative oversight. What these people seem to be proposing is the re-distribution of a smaller cake. This is frightening. How do these delusional fools get into positions of power ?
    If they want to create justice around the world they must allow under-developed countries to develop. This cannot be achieved without cheap and abundant electricity which can only come from fossil fuels or nuclear. Why not ?
    Objection (1) is that we have to cut down on CO2 emissions to stop global warming. This hypothesis has been discredited in so many ways by the real world data. Climate change is happening but it’s mild, it’s not unprecedented and it’s not a problem, cf Medieval Warm Period.
    Objection (2) is that resources are being depleted and we cannot continue this way. But mankind has never run out of any resource. Man is constantly researching new and better ways of doing things and before any resource is exhausted it is rendered unnecessary by new developments. Why would we expect man’s ingenuity to suddenly stop.
    It is well known that developed countries have lower birth rates. In an underdeveloped country your children are your provision for old age whereas in developed countries with wealth creating infrastructure people can make advance financial provision privately or through the State. Thus there is a double benefit of development in reducing the growth in the world’s population.
    If the philosophy from the Rio conference were implemented then there is no way that the current population of the Earth could be sustained. There would have to be a population reduction measured in billions. It is incumbent on those at Rio to acknowledge this and to explain to the rest of the world how they propose to bring this population reduction about.

  37. quidsapio
    I don’t know about the UK system but here in Tasmania my cousin was told a 6 year wait for cataract surgery.Needless to say she is going private and paying the difference herself.

  38. The elitists RIO+20 political watermelon narcissists have their job cut out for them if they think they are going to force their ideological and tyrannical cult onto the rest of the world.
    It appears that even the local Rio women are awake to their scheming!
    The great Watermelon cult of the Green elite is dying although the stench of it’s slow decay will stay around for many years yet unfortunately.
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/women-march-rio-protest-green-economy-174353168.html
    Women march in Rio to protest ‘green economy’
    Thousands of women representing social and farm movements marched in central Rio Monday to rail against the “green economy” advocated by the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development.
    Behind a large banner from the international peasant movement Via Campesina proclaiming “the peoples are against the mercantilization of nature”, they marched several miles to the Flamengo park, the venue for the “People’s Summit” organized by civil society groups on the sidelines of the Rio+20 event.
    Several hundred men closed off the march to show their solidarity.
    Perched atop a truck fitted with loudspeakers, a female activist howled: “This is a march of urban and rural women against this Rio+20 charade.”
    “No to green capitalism! Yes to an economy based on solidarity, yes to people’s sovereignty,” she added.

  39. Neil Jones says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:38 am
    This is the EU writ in blood.
    ________________________________
    Very much so. From what I can see the Soviet Union and the EU were trial balloons. The Soviet Union bombed and was cut but the EU was seen as a “success” As Pascal Lamy states the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance.
    In the magazine the GLOBALIST: How the world really hangs together, is an
    article where “Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, outlines the lessons that the world can learn from Europe.”
    Annotated with [coments by me ~ gc]

    Global Governance: Lessons from Europe
    ….What is global governance? For me, global governance describes the system we set up to assist human society to achieve its common purpose in a sustainable manner — that is, with equity and justice
    Growing interdependence requires that our laws, our social norms and values, our mechanisms for framing human behavior be examined, debated, understood and operated together as coherently as possible. This is what would provide the basis for effective sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions [This is “harmonization” ~ gc]
    …..governance needs to provide leadership, the incarnation of vision, of political energy, of drive.
    It also needs to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure ownership over decisions which lead to change — ownership to prevent the built-in bias towards resistance to modifying the status quo. [This is where CAGW and Environmentalism come in, to foster ownership ~ gc]
    A legitimate governance system must also ensure efficiency…
    Finally, a governance system must be coherent. Compromises would need to be found over objectives which often may contradict one another…
    …..legitimacy depends on the closeness of the relationship between the individual and the decision-making process, the challenge of global governance is distance. The other legitimacy challenges are the so-called democratic deficit and accountability deficit, which arise when there are no means for individuals to challenge international decision-making.
    the specific challenge of legitimacy in global governance is to deal with the perceived too-distant, non-accountable and non-directly challengeable decision-making at the international level…… [enter NGOs stage left… ~ gc]
    [Pascal Lamy’s Money Quote ~ gc]
    I realize that, in these troubled times for the European Union, it is no easy matter to present it as a new paradigm of global governance. And yet, the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance. It is the story of a desired, defined and organized interdependence between its member states.
    What marks the essence of the European governance paradigm is the coming together of a political will, a goal to be attained as well as an institutional set-up. It is the combination of these three elements — and not the specific method of governance used. Not that we should underestimate the technological leap forward in the building of Europe.
    ….

    Most of us are familiar with Maurice Strong and “Sscientists” like Phil Jones and Mike Mann but I think few outside of Europe have paid attention to Pascal Lamy another mover and shaker on the global governance scene. So who is Pascal Lamy and what are his tie-ins?

    Pascal Lamy launches new LSE programme [and there is his tie-in to the Fabians and the London School of Economics. ~ gc]
    EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, a key player in the globalisation and regulation of world trade, will speak at the London School of Economics and Political Science on Thursday 1 February at the launch of LSE’s new Global Dimensions programme.
    Commissioner Lamy’s talk will be on Harnessing globalisation: do we need cosmopolitics?….

    A Conversation with WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy
    By Adrienne Bryan and Esther Yu
    Director-General Pascal Lamy holds degrees from the Paris-based Ecole des Hautes Études
    Commerciales (HEC), from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (IEP) and from the Ecole Nationale
    d’Administration (ENA). He began his career in the French civil service at the Inspection Générale des finances and at the Treasury. He then became an advisor to the Finance Minister Jacques Delors, and subsequently to Prime Minister Pierre Mauroy. In Brussels from 1985 to 1994, Pascal Lamy was Chief of Staff for the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, and his representative as Sherpa in the G7. In November 1994, he joined the team in charge of rescuing Credit Lyonnais, and later became CEO of the bank until its privatization in 1999. Between 1999 and 2004, Pascal Lamy was Commissioner for Trade at the European Commission under Romano Prodi. After his tenure in Brussels, Pascal Lamy spent a short sabbatical period as President of “Notre Europe”, a think tank working on European integration, as associate Professor at the l’Institut d’études politiques in Paris and as advisor to Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (President of the European Socialist Party).
    [There is Lamy’s tie-in to the Bankers and the ~ cg]
    Q: From your perspective, how is sovereignty conceived of differently in the United States than in Europe?
    This is something for each nation to decide, what I have found is that sovereignty means more for big countries than for small countries. Small countries have a clearer sense of the need to band together to secure economy, political and military security. These differences exist within Europe as well, as the French, British, German, and Italian systems are all different. For this reason, it is difficult to compare a European and American vision of democracy. There is one difference which I would say is fundamental, and that is the fact that European countries by choice and also by necessity have decided to surrender a bit of their sovereignty so that they can make policy collectively through the European Union. Because of its size and power, this is something which the US has never really considered. The nation-state is still very strong in some European countries, but there is still the commitment to a united Europe. The EU has worked hard to strengthen its democratic foundations, largely by giving greater weight and authority to the European Parliament, each of whose members are directly elected by local constituents….. [Reading between the lines, this is the reason the USA must be weakened militarily and economically while China is strengthened ~ gc]
    Q: Why does the move towards a global democracy need to be a priority?
    We live in an age when the problems we face are increasingly global in nature and the solutions will have to be global as well. That means all countries must realize sooner or later that they need to work together and accept an erosion of individual sovereignty because it will not work its if some participate and others do not. This has been clear for more than 60 years in the area of multilateral trade. This has also become clear in the area of environment, in which fighting climate change will not work unless undertaken by all nations, according to their responsibilities. Finally, this need has recently become acute in the area of financial regulation.
    If we are to address the challenges of today’s world, many of which have a global dimension, we need to find multilateral solutions in which all nations participate to some degree. Unless governments feel a degree of ownership in the proposed solution, there will be little incentive to implement whatever that solution may be
    …. Moving towards a global democracy raises new challenges in terms of both efficiency (the international system is heavy and opaque) and legitimacy (citizen representation has to move beyond the frame of the nation-state)…. [There are the reasons for the UN’s first Earth Summit in 1972 and the financial crisis of today ~ cg]

    TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE WITH EUROPEAN UNION TRADE COMMISSIONER PASCAL LAMY – European Commission Delegation Washington, DC, November 4, 2003
    Is Europe’s left ready to govern?: If a new social democratic era is to be ushered in, the left must find new answers and strategies – or this chance will be wasted
    And anyone who thinks this “CHANCE” was not manufactured has been living in a closet with the door closed.

    I want membership of the Party of European Socialists
    …. I want the Labour Party to enable my membership to include individual membership of the Party of European Socialists (PES)
    Can you think of a better way of enabling better understanding of, involvement in and commitment to Britain’s membership of the European Union?
    I proposed this at the Fabian Conference morning session on Saturday on European Britain. I don’t claim authorship of this idea. John Palmer, former European Editor of the Guardian and latterly policy director of the European Policy Centre wrote about….

    There is the European Socialist Party and Fabian Society tie-in.
    If you do not think this effects the USA here is Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke’s speech at the London School of Economics: The Crisis and the Policy Response
    (A Transcript, Press Cuttings, Podcast and Video, available at LSE – http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2008/20081203t1159z001.aspx )

    CONCLUSION
    ….Finally, a clear lesson of the recent period is that the world is too interconnected for nations to go it alone in their economic, financial, and regulatory policies. International cooperation is thus essential if we are to address the crisis successfully and provide the basis for a healthy, sustained recovery.

    Sounds like Lamy doesn’t he?

  40. Unfortunately, Agenda 21 and subsequent grand plans to reconfigure human society on a global scale are not widely known among the general public. Which means that they will be pursued with little resistance, until such time as they impinge directly on the billions of individuals inhabiting this rock. Leading up to that, we will see many wars, uprisings, social discontent, revolutions, and overall social, financial, and political chaos. Which is the goal of course. The old must be destroyed to bring in the new, is the motto.
    Read the news lately?

  41. ‘Sustainable Justice’
    It was only a matter of time before they came up w/that vile & disgusting Orwellian phrase.

  42. Harold Pierce Jr says:
    June 19, 2012 at 3:07 am
    I suggest that national petitions be started in Canada and the US that mandate withdrawal from the UN. Then we can kick the leeches out of NYC and send them packing to Europe.
    _____________________________________
    Better add the World Trade Organization. It is the strong arm of the UN. And do not forget NAFTA.

  43. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    Sorry, I can’t agree that a certain amount of wealth redistribution would be a bad thing – though I don’t think there’s much danger of it actually happening. I think the idea Obama is interested in spreading the riches around is laughable. He serves the interest of the tiny minority of super-rich as most world leaders do and always have done.He’s just mouthing platitudes and making promises he has no intention of keeping – which is his hallmark in everything.
    But what’s wrong with universal health care? I’ve lived in the US and the UK and I know which one I’d prefer to get sick in. It doesn’t have to mean a “nanny state” and when people talk like that they’re being as irrational as any Warmist.

    You obviously have not ‘been sick in’ the UK recently. see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2161292/NHS-care-Lack-compassion-overworked-staff-costing-patients-lives.html

  44. Quidsapio,
    “But what’s wrong with universal health care?”
    What is wrong is that this “blueprint” advocates universal healthcare (plus guaranteed state allowances for every child, guaranteed state support for the unemployed and underemployed, and basic universal pensions and universal social security) AND they intend to achieve this by an economic system “with little or no resource extraction or economic growth to support it. In other words, it guarantees sustained injustice and redistribution of increasing scarcity.”
    Indeed, anyone who was serious in building universal everycare, would go for massive development of the cheapest sources of energy. They are therefore frauds or economic illiterates. Neither type of individual is one I would like to see ruling over me.

  45. Move within the circles for which film and gallery openings and ballet after- parties and such are de rigueur. Hang out in trendy places where the hip and the cool and the elite gather to discuss the things they discuss and impress each other with all of the latest buzzwords.
    Ask the simplest of questions… “what does sustainability mean?” … “so, mandatory means- sending men with guns?”… persist as they mumble nonsense.
    Watch their faces redden
    Become the target of vitriolic tirades, even assaults, from those who view themselves as oh, so above it all.
    Get yourself dis- invited from such gatherings and even people’s homes- told never to return.
    The Red Queen will have her heads.

  46. Goldie says:
    June 19, 2012 at 1:06 am
    …….
    Any concerted attempt at fiscal equalization would remove fiscal incentive from this system to the extent that the ability to generate wealth to pass on to third world countries would be lost. In truth, people in third world countries would be no better off if the entire GDP of the G 20 were moved to them today – they have no means of using those funds for ongoing wealth creation and it would simply bankrupt the G20.

    Which of course is the intent – its an easier way than outright war as you can have people inside the states of the G20 eagerly cooperating to hasten their country’s demise

  47. LazyTeenager,
    “Yep!
    So which masters are Paul and Duggan beholden to? And then we can ask the question whether those masters “will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology”
    Do you actually have a point to make, or are you just having a troll?

  48. The wealth we should start with on redistribution is the UN funding. Let’s do that and check in 5 years how it helped.

  49. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    “But what’s wrong with universal health care?”
    The problem is always cost control. In order to control costs certain protocols have to be instituted. These protocols are devised, set and administered by non medical people. You end up having someone other than you and your doctor making decisions of what medical procedures can be used to take care of the issue and when they are applicable.

  50. The people who propose these measures are losers.
    Their slogan is: If you can’t join capitalism, beat it (to death).
    Destroying is all they know.

  51. It is, in short, the total nanny state.

    Take a short trip to a total nanny state, North Korea. They control everything you do, everything you eat, and everything you think because if you dare think differently, you and your parents and your children and your children’s children will be sent to a special camp. Some of the ones we know of from satellite photos, camp defectors, and survivors are Camp 14, Camp 15, Camp 18, and Camp 22. In the nanny state, the religion is the state. The God is not a deity but the dear leader. The guards in the special camps treat the residents of the special camps without mercy because if they don’t, then they and their family to the third generation will be a resident in the camp too. The only ones who live well are the privileged few.
    The only way to control the lives of humans to the degree they want is by inhumane treatment. And you can bet your last dollar that the special ones, like Al Gore, won’t have to make sacrifices. The people who plan these utopias always plan how they want others to live, not how they want themselves to live. And so, because by design the creators of utopia are insulated from the troubles of the real life people live, life is really a dystopia.
    Also, please provide references for these quotes.

  52. Thanks for the guest post Anthony.
    The 21st century could move us to a time of plenty, a cornucopia, with opportunuities yet undreamt of. Why are these 18 people trying to crush us back to the caves?
    Deja vu – at the end of Jimmy (‘Malaise Forever’) Carter’s presidency, he commissioned a study from top economists, scientists and ‘futurologists’ which predicted that the future would be dire unless we all hunkered down and sacrificed. Any parallels?
    It’s worth re-reading (“The Global 2000 Report to the President”, ISBN 0 14 02.2441 6) for a laugh at their Malthusian predictions, especially the chapter on climate change which has 5 scenarios starting with ‘major global cooling’.

  53. Green activists at Rio are trying to increase the already exorbitant taxes on our fossil fuels by starting an #endfossilfuelsubsidies “Twitterstorm”
    http://endfossilfuelsubsidies.org/twitterstorm/
    There are, of course no subsidies on fossil fuels in most countries. Greens use “subsidy” as a misnomer for any tax relief granted to business.
    Since this is the very week that the “father” of the environmental movement James Lovelock described most green activism as “meaningless green drivel”.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drivel-environment-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
    If you’re active on twitter, and come across #endfossilfuelsubsidies or any other irritating green nonsense – why not reply #meaninglessgreendrivel
    Let’s have a sceptical “Twitterstorm”

  54. As usual you’ve got your parties backwards. It was your boy Bush Senior who enthusiastically brought us into this evil nonsense in 1992. Obama doesn’t have the guts to fully secede, but he’s dragging his feet as much as he can. The Greenies are NOT happy with Obama.

  55. Peter Miller
    You hit the nail on the head, this is just failed communism with a new lamb skin wrapped around the wolf. Exactly the ism that our Julia Gillard stood for in her university years. Makes you wonder where we are being dragged, the ideal of communism with some fancy icing trimmed with progressive frosting.
    Seems that as the rediculous CAGW lazy teenager world of deception disguised as science, get laid to rest, the real agenda emerges, The good thing for Lazy teenagers is that under that system they “think” they will get it all without raising a finger or the slightest sweat to be the rulers of the future.
    Ask the millions of displaced persons and refugee’s who fled that sort of regime, if we should allow that ilk control our lives. LT would be put out to labour camp, quick smart, while the new ruling class takes/steals more of the cake, and the crumbs are offered with the sweepings from their table, in the dirt and dust of history.

  56. Sorry but this is one of the few sites which has even noticed rio20. I aint seen any news about it anywhere which shows hoe little interest there is is AGW except here LOL

  57. “It is, therefore, a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion. Through Socialism alone will the relations between men in society, and their relations to Nature, become reasonable, orderly, and completely intelligible, leaving no nook or cranny for superstition. The entry of Socialism is, consequently, the exodus of religion.”
    from: Socialism and Religion, 1910, The Socialist Party of Great Britain,
    http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-and-religion
    Socialism is the belief that we can (and must) live at the expense of others. By its very structure, it violates the Commandments that forbid coveting and theft.
    No person who is covetous has any inheritance in the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 5:5) Socialism is antithetical to God.

  58. Spread the wealth around? By what means? In the end, the means always involve coercion and compulsion. Sometimes, it involves bloodshed, terror and the loss of life, like in Cambodia. It also destroys the ability the economy to function.
    The economist Ludwig von Mises showed in 1920 [1,2] that since a socialist economy destroys price information via government intrusion, the myriad of participants in the economy are unable to make a fully rational calculation about true profit and loss. Any economic activity that operates at a loss cannot be “sustainable”, a concept the left loves to scold us about, yet cannot really grasp.
    Taking another approach, the Nobel economist F.A. Hayek showed that a national economy had such an immense myriad of dynamic economic relationships that no single committee or bureaurcracy, no matter how smart or how well staffed, could possibly know enough to direct prices or production levels. His Nobel Lecture [3] was entitled The Pretence of Knowledge. Hayek had previously used this idea as the basis for a very thorough article [4] on the subject, “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”
    When these two different withering critiques of socialism are combined, it is easy to see that not only is it dangrously foolish to think that economic decisions can successfully be made by government, but that competing bureaucracies will invariably react to the consequences of intrusions in the marketplace by each other. It would be like trying to control the height of waves on a lake by measuring them from the back of a boat circling in its own wake.
    [1] Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises
    http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
    [2] Why a Socialist Economy is “Impossible” by Joseph T. Salerno
    http://mises.org/econcalc/POST.asp
    [3] The Pretense of Knowledge http://mises.org/daily/3229
    [4] “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, XXXV, No. 4; September, 1945, pp. 519–30.
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=92

  59. Indeed. Time for equality all around. I have always been a lousy runner and basketball player. With a large frame, my marathon weight was about 185. I want all of the lighter guys to have to carry a 80 lb sack of rocks while they run. And it is just “not fair” that somebody gets to be closer to the basket than me who used to be 5′ 11″. I want all basketball players over that height to get part of their leg removed so we can be on a “fair” and level playing field. I may think it is “fair” for me to go to McDonalds to get a burger, but I think the cow is of another opinion on the matter.

  60. And when the Earth decides to again return to snowball status, whose wealth do they then redistribute?

  61. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It’s been tried before and it FAILS miserably every time.
    Who is John Galt?

  62. I am glad CFACT is in Rio but it needs to also have its eyes on the Belmont Forum and the International Biosphere-Geosphere Programme and the entire Future Earth Alliance apparatus planning to go operational in 2013. With ICLEI at the local levels and these initiatives using OPM, the entire UN apparatus plus the World Bank and OECD are planning on a green economy of degrowth and no fossil fuels regardless of what voters want.
    And it’s all out of our site for the most part.
    Here’s a story I wrote on how the Un’s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development is also driving this nightmare of power and unaccountable control over our innermost possessions.
    http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/if-facts-wont-cooperate-there-is-always-pedagogy/

  63. How do you reconcile the Declaration of Independence preamble “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” and handicapping children who aren’t born into wealth and priviledge with poor quality education and non-existent health care? I suppose the hoi polloi can pursue happiness – as long as their chance of success is negligible.
    The other thing our country was founded upon was an aversion to aristocracy. Encouraging insurmountable differences in the starting points of our nation’s children will only increase the political divisions – until we again reach a point where the wealthy and priviledged are again an aristocracy.

  64. The fundamental human conflict is Autoracy vs Meritocracy. Those of ‘high birth’ have surrounded themselves with ill gotten gain bankers and thieves. They have underpinned this Imperial philosopy with the Malthus-Darwin-Nihilist dogma. Malthus ‘proved’ that populations will always outgrow resources and REQUIRES massive population reductions. Darwin ‘proved’ that only the strongest and most ruthless survive, prosper and reproduce….therefore the most powerful [by any means] should prevail. Nihilism absolves all guilt from these required autocratic actions, as there is NO right or wrong. Plato was WRONG….Malthus has been proven wrong repeatedly. Darwin made very crude observations which could hardly be called a hypothesis. If Darwin had access to the extensive geologic and DNA records of today he would NOT be a Darwinist. It is time for a New Magna Carta and ‘redistribution’ of wealth from the non-achievers of high birth to the re-education of the masses into a more productive and individually invested role in our newly freed human family. Support Universal Freedom !

  65. I have just changed my homepage from CNN news to Fox news. Why? CNN just announced the following, probably because of the summit happening in Rio. What idiots. My guess is that already planned for and budgeted disaster drills will continue, and sea wall work will go on as scheduled, just under a new name. And hopefully with coinage donated from redistributed wealth programs. CO2 is such a gravy train!
    “CNN has teamed up with The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and the Carbon Disclosure Project to show the risks climate change poses to five major global cities and the steps they are taking to protect them for future generations. “

  66. dcfl51 says:
    June 19, 2012 at 4:19 am
    I have always thought that socialism is about the re-distribution of the cake and capitalism is about making a bigger cake.
    ==========
    Sustainability means making a cake without using any raw materials or energy. Using local materials and no fossil fuels.
    In other words, completely unsustainable. If we tried to feed 7 billion people in this fashion, 6 billion of them would quickly starve. The other 1 billion already live like this – they are the poorest of the poor.
    No UN official, no US politician in power today, none of these people are living a sustainable live-style. They shun the very thought of living the life they propose for the rest of us.
    This is the thinking that killed millions of Russians, millions of Cambodians, and led to the massive flood of Chinese refuges 20 years ago. The Chinese government woke up and today the Chinese economy is not only sustainable, it is generating a surplus.
    This surplus is what generates wealth. Sustainability by its very nature generates no surplus, and thus can only keep people in their place. It can never hope to raise them up. Sustainability is simply a politically correct name for poverty.
    When people generate a surplus, and the government keeps the surplus, this is called taxes. When the people keep their surplus, this is called profit. Some hold that profit is a bad thing. That profit should go to the government to benefit all. These people are called government paid workers and officials.

  67. The Medium is the Message: Climatists use of the same tactics they believed were working for them in the past, back in the 20th century; but, these same tactics now mark them as purveyors of half-truths and superstition in the 21st century (at least among the thinking class who value reason and logic over feelings) and now they must think of new ways to keep the hoax alive.
    http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/skepticism-of-climatism-focuses-on-the-lefts-motives/

  68. SocialBlunder says:
    June 19, 2012 at 6:48 am
    How do you reconcile the Declaration of Independence preamble “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” and handicapping children who aren’t born into wealth and priviledge with poor quality education and non-existent health care? I suppose the hoi polloi can pursue happiness – as long as their chance of success is negligible.
    The other thing our country was founded upon was an aversion to aristocracy. Encouraging insurmountable differences in the starting points of our nation’s children will only increase the political divisions – until we again reach a point where the wealthy and priviledged are again an aristocracy.

    The people handicapping children in the US public schools are the US public schools. We can see that when the ‘Charter Schools’ receive children the levels of education are far superior. Now why would it be that a ‘socialist’ public school system would disadvantage the poorer children? There is actually a significant amount of health care available cheaply and often free in the USA provided both by private charities (sponsored by the wealthy and privileged that you despise) and also by local and state government. (Google it and see)
    The big difference in the USA is that if you work hard and focus because of equality of opportunity you can obtain the rewards of that work. It is the socialists and wealth distributors that would penalize people for working and pass it to those who didn’t feel like getting out of bed. ‘The American Dream’ is an anathema to the socialist.

  69. “universal fiscal equalization” was tried in Canada. It was called “equalization payments”. Tax money was taken from the rich provinces and given to the poor provinces to boost their economies. On paper it sounded like a great idea.
    The reality was that it devastated the economies in the poor provinces, by artificially inflating the price of goods and services and making them uncompetitive, and thus unsustainable. Much as we are seeing in the EU today.
    Politicians ignore the Law of Unintended Consequences. Yet we know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Feeding the poor does not end hunger. It creates more hungry people.

  70. Faux Science Slayer says:
    June 19, 2012 at 6:53 am
    It is time for a New Magna Carta and ‘redistribution’ of wealth from the non-achievers of high birth to the re-education of the masses into a more productive and individually invested role in our newly freed human family.
    ===========
    All societies eventually move to revolution in an attempt to restore equality. Much of the wealth of the world is held by a handful of people. In Canada, 90% of the wealth is held by 11 families and corporations. They set the boom and bust cycles through their investments. They use their insider knowledge to trade ahead of the market to win at a game that is rigged from the start.
    The situation is no different in the US. The wealthy created a real estate bubble by pumping money into the real estate market, bundled their liability into derivatives and used the collapse to drain the pension funds of a lifetime. Americans that had worked and saved a lifetime woke up to find they were wiped out.

  71. Bill Tuttle says:
    June 19, 2012 at 1:11 am
    The 18-member Group includes no Americans – but condemns the US and other governments for their dedication to economic growth, rather than wealth redistribution, and demands that governments play a key role in promoting “sustainability” and welfare.
    Translation for the politically-impaired: “Creating wealth is bad. Redistributing wealth is good.”
    As long as it’s not their wealth. They have no interest in producing their own wealth. They only want someone else’s they can take. Caring bunch, eh?

  72. Pamela Gray says:
    June 19, 2012 at 6:55 am
    “CNN has teamed up with The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and the Carbon Disclosure Project to show the risks climate change poses to five major global cities and the steps they are taking to protect them for future generations. ”
    I wish I could say I really cared about CNN and their involvement with “climate issues” – but alas they are irrelevant to me and my life, and simply aren’t worth my time anymore. However, this may help increase their viewership from 5 to maybe 7 or 8 people…

  73. ROM says:
    June 19, 2012 at 4:37 am

    It’s good to see people realizing the scam of green economics. The authorities claim they must take over and control vast sectors of the economy to save us. Local people instinctively know they survive when they control their own land and can grow their own food, thus maintaining their own local economy.
    The funny part is calling it “green capitalism”. Unfortunately, they don’t understand free market capitalism is freedom. Freedom to purchase what products you want. Freedom to make goods and provide services. Let the best prosper. Let everyone make their own decisions about what is best for them. There is no central planning authority that could possibly take into consideration all of the factors that matter to every individual.
    Socialism is the lie that everyone owns everything, when in fact everyone is equally poor (except for a small elite at the top), and getting poorer. Green is just a new shade of red. Power in government is the problem. Power in the hands of the people should be stronger than government. In fact it is, but people have to realize it. WUWT helps energize people and gives them the information they need to recognize the Judas goats and avoid the slaughterhouse.

  74. Uh…no. Public schools are not handicapping underprivileged children. In fact, when compared to underprivileged children in private and charter schools, underprivileged children in public schools outperform their matched peers in reading and math. What private and charter schools do better is preach to the choir. Advantaged children do better in private and charter schools than their public school matched peers.
    So why to underprivileged children do better in public schools? Maybe it’s because more public school sourced or coordinated services are available to underprivileged children in public schools than there is in private and charter schools.

  75. Feeding the poor isn’t their intention, and the consequences of their actions are not unintended.

  76. Gail–One of my next topics will be something called Purple America, a supposed character education, values, and social and emotional learning program the NEA has developed for US schools.
    Not only do the so-called American values it mandates mirror those global governance values you just described, they also fit what Ayn Rand called state mandated altruism to a tee.
    Which also dovetails with an obligation to be sustainable. Especially if the poor student knows little history or economics or real science and math and the logic and abstract thinking they foster.
    A world where people mostly feel and believe and expect to be taken care of makes us all sitting ducks.
    Tim Jackson’s Prosperity without Growth world will quickly become No Prosperity, No Growth. Insufficient Wealth Generation to sustain those currently alive.
    What a silly, murderous way to try to finally make Malthus prescient.

  77. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    Sorry, I can’t agree . . .
    . . .
    But what’s wrong with universal health care? I’ve lived in the US and the UK and I know which one I’d prefer to get sick in.

    The Lockerbie terrorist al-Megrahi apparently did not agree with you because when given the chance he left the UK for Libya and received Cabazitaxel – too expensive for the NHS.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2142786/NHS-patients-refused-expensive-prostate-cancer-drug-good-Lockerbie-terrorist-al-Megrahi.html
    If we could get “the universe” to pay for all the Earth’s health care needs, that would be great. When you have arranged for that get back to us.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    and @ 4:18 in the US if you can’t pay you don’t get it at all.
    That’s bs, and you know it.
    . . . for example: [see Nolene @4:35 am]
    Our neighbor ~~in central rural Washington State – USA~~ needed cataract surgery and got same in short order – and she paid not a dime. Had she not had a son to drive her and pay for the gasoline the ride to the hospital would have been free also.

  78. I think they called it ‘Agenda 21’ so that anyone writing about it would be deemed to be a tin-foil conspiracy nut case (Area 51). The conspiracy of Agenda 21, year right, here try this on, sleeves are a bit long but we can fix that….
    It needs a different name like: The Rio Accord for Prosperity Equalization (RAPE).

  79. Ref thingadonta (June 19, 2012 at 3:26 am)
    On ‘sustainability’.
    The actual truth that these “social engineers” avoid mentioning, is their actual goal.
    Sustainable Bureaucracy.
    Layer upon layer of departments, officials, cubical dwellers, and inspectors poking and examining the herd. Think “Sam Lowry” in Terry Gilliam’s Brasil or “Winston Smith” from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The organizational framework that those two characters live in is the exact thing that the UN and pretty much all governments strive for… their “sustainment.” A means to justify continued existence.
    This is why problems are never solved by government officials… just dealt with or deferred long enough so that who ever is complaining either goes away or is defeated. If the issue is ultimately fixed (through error or self correction) then a new problem has to be found or manufactured to take it’s place to justify the activity of the officials or organization that they belong to.
    Thats why they “never let a crisis go to waste.”

  80. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    Sorry, I can’t agree that a certain amount of wealth redistribution would be a bad thing – though I don’t think there’s much danger of it actually happening. I think the idea Obama is interested in spreading the riches around is laughable. He serves the interest of the tiny minority of super-rich as most world leaders do and always have done.He’s just mouthing platitudes and making promises he has no intention of keeping – which is his hallmark in everything.
    But what’s wrong with universal health care? I’ve lived in the US and the UK and I know which one I’d prefer to get sick in. It doesn’t have to mean a “nanny state” and when people talk like that they’re being as irrational as any Warmist.

    What gives you the right to redistribute anybody’s wealth? State-sponsored theft of property is still theft.
    As for what’s wrong with universal healthcare? Seriously? How many months do you want to wait to have surgery? Do you want to wait to be assigned a doctor by the government?

  81. “They insist that all governments provide universal access to public health care, guaranteed state allowances for every child, guaranteed state support for the unemployed and underemployed, and basic universal pensions and universal social security.”
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    The problem with Britain’s welfare state, which includes all of the benefits in the above quote (they forgot education) is affordability and abuse as reflected in this article:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2109526/Why-Britains-fallen-love-welfare-state.html
    “Britain now spends 7.2 per cent of GDP (£110 billion, excluding free health care and education), on it’s welfare system, and the costs of supporting the, supposedly, needy continue to rise. As the Whitehall empire grows, drowning the noble intentions of welfare in red tape, so too do the number who choose to abuse the system.
    For years the welfare state was one of the glories of Britain’s democratic landscape, a monument to the generosity and decency of human nature, offering a hand up to those unlucky enough to be born at the bottom. The current system has become bureaucratic, sclerotic and ineffective, trapping thousands of people in a cycle of dependency.
    Sir William Beverage, who founded the welfare system, was a man of personal austerity, who rose every morning at dawn, took an ice-cold bath and worked for two hours before breakfast, he hated the thought people might ‘settle down’ to a life on benefits.
    Beveridge’s mission was to eradicate the grinding poverty of the Hungry Thirties, when three out of four people in some industrial towns were out of work, when thousands of children suffered from disease and malnutrition, and when rickets, dental decay and anaemia were widespread in inner cities.And to his credit, Beveridge’s system was an overwhelming success.
    Yet like so many top-down initiatives, the welfare state gradually became a gigantic exercise in Whitehall empire-building.
    Not surprisingly, waste and fraud are widespread. A few years ago, even the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) itself admitted that the level of fraud in the jobseeker’s allowance was almost 10 per cent. Year after year, as the former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Edward Leigh, remarked, ‘the story has been the same: the DWP loses enormous sums of money to fraud and error . . . Year after year billions of pounds are going into the pockets of people who are not entitled to them.’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2109526/Why-Britains-fallen-love-welfare-state.html#ixzz1yFhuLTY8

  82. Tom in Florida says:
    “quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    “But what’s wrong with universal health care?”
    The problem is always cost control. In order to control costs certain protocols have to be instituted. These protocols are devised, set and administered by non medical people. You end up having someone other than you and your doctor making decisions of what medical procedures can be used to take care of the issue and when they are applicable.”
    I know this is the way it’s presented in the US – but I can promise you that’s not the way it operates in practice. The standard of healthcare offered in the UK is very high, and would be even higher if we didn’t have a government intent on destroying the NHS. And anyhow universal health care doesn’t preclude private practice. In the UK we have both and people have been able to exercise a choice.
    I believe it’s been demonstrated that the US spends far more per capita on healthcare with far less benefit, because of course the profit motive drives the principle of least possible service for highest possible cost. That might b acceptable in other areas of commerce, but when it comes to people’s health, it obviously isn’t good for anyone.
    And I don’t consider our NHS to be anything to do with socialism btw – it’s just an expression of civilised values.

  83. @ Frank K. says:
    June 19, 2012 at 7:51 am
    Pamela Gray says:
    June 19, 2012 at 6:55 am
    “CNN has teamed up with The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and the Carbon Disclosure Project to show the risks climate change poses to five major global cities and the steps they are taking to protect them for future generations. ”
    I wish I could say I really cared about CNN and their involvement with “climate issues” – but alas they are irrelevant to me and my life, and simply aren’t worth my time anymore. However, this may help increase their viewership from 5 to maybe 7 or 8 people…
    This is the group (C40) that is chaired by none other than estimable Mayor Bloomberg of NYC. The same Mayor who has recently declared war on large soda’s, popcorn and milkshakes, among other things. What an asinine idiota.

  84. In the San Francisco Bay area, Agenda 21 has taken the form of a program called “One Bay Area.” Scoping meetings have been held around the Bay using what is known as the “Delphi” technique. In these scoping meetings, the general public is asked to contribute to the process with their thoughts and ideas. The problem is that under the Delphi technique they are offered limited choices, all compatible with the underlying ideology. The resulting choices are then presented to governing bodies indicating public support for the program (with no dissent). Elected legislators and council people then assume this is what their constituents want, and so pass Draconian measures to alleviate a perceived threat (global warming), while simply adding to the tyrannical utopian state of Progressive Collectivism.
    I’ve noticed a careful avoidance of the term “communism” in most responses and critique of what’s going on. Perhaps it is time to begin clarifying the soft terms of sustainability, collectivism, environmental justice, progressive, equity, etc., and reveal the tyrannical ideology that is behind them. It is Doublethink, Newspeak, propaganda, and the rules for radicals. One must understand those techniques, the ideologies that underlie them, and recognize when they are being used in order to defend against tyranny. We must be willing to call out and ridicule the proponents of this before they gain any more power. (Look how far global warming alarmism has gone, while most of us still don’t realized it is just a tool for Progressive Collectivists to gain power.)

  85. I am at a loss to explain the silence on the Wall Street Journal in regards to Rio+20.
    Even today, in the The Decline of Democracy by Bret Stephens, Rio isn’t mentioned once.
    Some possible explanations:
    1. WSJ is waiting for the ink to dry before the first of many salvo.
    1a. WSJ is waiting the the ink to dry on the US Signatures before the first of many salvos.
    2. Rio+20 is really quite harmless and the CFACT guys are making it seem much worse than it really is to drum up hits.
    3. WSJ editors figure that the financial tax, like all government programs, will still make Wall Street a fortune in taking their cut.
    4. WSJ is inexplicably asleep at the switch, though the UN Internet Power Grab a few days ago belies that.
    5. WSJ Editorial Board has been infiltrated by Agenda21 supporters.
    I hope it is #1 or 1a.

  86. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    But what’s wrong with universal health care? I’ve lived in the US and the UK and I know which one I’d prefer to get sick in. It doesn’t have to mean a “nanny state” and when people talk like that they’re being as irrational as any Warmist.

    As other’s have mentioned, when you use government weaponry to force the citizenry into universal health care, you also put their health care decisions under the control of bureaucrats and politicians. Do you really want [insert the name of your least favorite political figure here] deciding whether or not you qualify for that operation you need?
    Below is an article with a few examples of how nanny state ideas have already started to infiltrate the US. Maybe universal health care ‘doesn’t have to mean a nanny state’, but it surely will.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/06/18/the-dangerous-synergy-between-the-nanny-state-and-universal-health-care/

  87. “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
    This is a fallacy perpetuated by the short-sighted petty tyrants who want to control everybody else, and thus seek to buy their allegiances with other people’s money.
    The fact is that redistribution of assets *inevitably* takes them away from those who manage them well (thereby accumulating wealth) and hands these assets out to people who do not manage them well (thereby squandering wealth).
    When the receivers outnumber the providers, politicians get re-elected, but providers get discouraged, and the receivers get greedier.

  88. Thoughs of Animal Farm, this morning:
    When it comes to sustainable actions, there must be no more vacations. Expending energy to travel is something that cannot be tolerated. Of course, there must stilll be Agenda21 meetings to progress the agenda. So some vacationers are more sustainable than others.

  89. I spent the last two weeks in Rio on business. From the first week to the second week, the price of hotels doubled, due to the deluge of delegates for this circus. After the people arrived in Rio for the conference, my hotel was crawling with delegates, many of whom were young people proudly wearing shirts proclaiming their participation in the “youth sustainability” events. It made me sick to think that they were there because of government funding. These UN sponsored events are nothing but shameless and grotesque wastes of money.

  90. Ian – While charter schools are an interesting attempt to solve the education problem, when population and environmental factors are controlled charter results are no different than non-charter results. US K-12 education has never been very good, where we excel is our college+ education. College education is now a requirement for middle class and the cost of a good education is now out of reach of the middle class.
    A quick glance at the Texas HHS (http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/help/index.shtml) indicates that very limited care is available for extremely poor children, women, and families – but not men. This limited care does not include even basic preventative doctor’s visits.
    While there will always be Horatio Alger stories of exceptional people who clamber out of poverty, setting up a society where power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of increasingly few and then expecting those few to share their wealth (as you appear to do with charity health care) seems ignorant of the real world. The US is less economically mobile than nearly all European countries. It matters more who your parents are here than it does over there.

  91. quidsapio says: But what’s wrong with universal health care?

    Well, nothing unless you happen to be a doctor or other health care professional suddenly indentured against your will to provide that care for whatever some politician decides it is worth rather than what every living breathing individual decides it is worth to them personally. How about “universal car care” or “universal food service” or “universal education”? Whenever you take capitalism out of the equation – surplus and quality are the first to leave the scene.
    Excepting slavery, without competition there is no incentive for quality. Without capitalism there is no incentive to create a surplus or innovate to reduce costs. (And surplus is the ONLY true source of government revenue.)

  92. tadchem says:
    In other words,
    “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw

  93. Luther Wu says:
    “Ask the simplest of questions… “what does sustainability mean?” … “so, mandatory means- sending men with guns?”… persist as they mumble nonsense.”
    But Luther, there is a full blown journal dedicated to the study of sustainability: the International Journal of Sustainable Economy
    http://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijse
    and it publishes such wonderful articles as: “Why are some people greener than others?”
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/ip-was061212.php
    which contains such sterling prose as:
    “In the face of climate change, rising sea levels, melting icecaps, the depletion of natural resources, the destruction of rainforests, species extinction and many other environmental concerns, the notion of sustainability is high on the agenda. If we are to address the environmental issues then finding alternative ways to maintain or improve our lifestyle without further damaging the environment is essential to progress. The concepts of gender and income inequality, literacy rates, education possibilities, life expectancies and poverty alleviation must also be incorporated into the sustainability equation.
    To explore the root of sustainable behavior, values and attitudes of different populations were probed and correlated against sustainable behavior. The values pivoted around the basic beliefs different populations harbored towards actions that may support sustainability. For example, being unselfish is an important quality to encourage as is being prepared to do something to improve the conditions in your community. The attitudes also hinged on priorities individuals set when considering sustainable agendas. For instance, sustainable development should be a priority for society while the social responsibility of business leaders should be high towards society.”
    Oh, never mind, I guess this just demonstrates your point about mumbling nonsense.

  94. Soooooooo…The Question:
    “Can you define sustainability? ICLEI can’t…”

    H/T CFACT

  95. These guys are insane.
    Have they read 1984? Sure seems like they’re trying to take all the pages out of that book.

  96. Curiousgeorge says:
    June 19, 2012 at 8:24 am
    “This is the group (C40) that is chaired by none other than estimable Mayor Bloomberg of NYC. The same Mayor who has recently declared war on large soda’s, popcorn and milkshakes, among other things. What an asinine idiota.”
    Ah yes – big gulp soda from 7-11, BAD – “tall” Starbucks mocha latte with whipped cream, GOOD. /facepalm.
    It is both sad and comical to see climate “science” and the “green” movement going the way of the #Occupy movement…

  97. The problem with any school, be it charter, public, home-school, private, or religious is lack of high standards and fire when a student does not perform at a proficient or exceeded level. Study after study clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that when low performance is faced with “pants on fire” strategies to improve performance, performance improves, regardless of who or what you are as a student, or in what income bracket your school is in.
    I also know that being told to teach some kind of environmentalism or communist curriculum is way down the list and is often ignored by districts struggling to raise achievement in language arts, math, and science.
    So when commentors here post some off the cuff comment about public schools, I am reminded of the off the cuff belief statements about AGW. Much bias, little fact.

  98. The US is less economically mobile than nearly all European countries. It matters more who your parents are here than it does over there.

    Pure twaddle and claptrap, two words which could be used to describe nearly your entire post. Upward mobility is not created by the government. Upward mobility is created by freedom and individual effort.
    Vouchers are a better answer than charter schools.

  99. Sustainable development as it is being used in this UN literature is simply an updated, more palatable sounding version of what used to be known as “ecological humanism.” Back in the 70s this was the idea that economic and population growth be halted. Technology would be controlled (that happens to be in most of the UN reports for the 21st century I have read). And then gross inequalities of income are done away with. That latter is consistent with that line of plenty now being pushed in UN lit.
    The basic tenet of ecological humanism is the reality illiterate idea that sees “the purpose of the economy as the service of community.” That would explain the mandated altruism we see in Purple America and the reenvisioned definitions of civics education currently being proposed.
    Finally and most troubling is the idea that the concept of the individual needs to be replaced. The new concept under ecological humanism then and sustainable development today is that the individual only really exists in relation to others. Doing for others is the new 21st century definition of living. “Person-in-community” may sound a bit like slavery or serfdom to us. Its proponents also believe, literally, that there were many good elements to feudalism that make it “worthy of careful consideration” as a new, redesigned economic system for the benefit of community.
    And we all know precisely who is volunteering for the positions of liege lords. And ladies too in these gender equity days.

  100. Curiousgeorge says:
    “Environmental concerns have caused one high-ranking UN official to declare that “the West” does not need more cars, televisions, and other consumer luxuries.”
    This statement from Helen Clark. Makes you wonder when she will be giving up all her creature comforts and redistributing her wealth?
    “Surprisingly, Clark owns an Auckland villa worth $720,000, a Wellington townhouse worth about $350,000, an apartment in Christchurch, property at Rodney, and is ‘a beneficiary of two family trusts’. Her joint annual income with her husband is estimated at $500,000.”
    http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/01/money_power.html

  101. RE: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” & “wealth redistribution”
    These are nice sounding terms for Marxist Communism. On paper it looks great, BUT in reality the movement of wealth goes from the middle class to the ruling elite.

  102. On vouchers, any legislation needs to deal with the unconstrained dictatorship that modern-day accreditation has become. Or the public schools stay poisoned and you open the voucher receiving private schools to the accreditors gutting academics.
    Pamela-I am not sure who you are talking to but someone wanting to spread communism via the schools emphasizes the socialist theory of the mind, not who owns what a redistribution. The socialist theory of the mind emphasizes emotion and rejects any distinction between feelings and reason. Secondly, it puts a premium on physical activity like projects and otherwise creating artefacts like posters or videos. It rejects the idea that there is any such thing as rational thought or an ability to construct a private mental world. That’s why it also rejects teaching reading beyond a basic level of functionality in daily life.
    On environmentalism, listen to that CFACT video. The articulate gentleman describing “systemic thinking” is how environmentalism comes in and becomes a permanent component of an individual’s filtering mindset. Probably not even a conscious quality either.

  103. Haven’t read all the comments . . . . But I say . . . IF . . .IF . . . ALL those really, really, really, rich people decided to give ALL THEIR . . . money to the poor, or whoever else they wanted to, including “everybody in the whole wide world” . . . . there is nothing in US law that says they can not; . . .and: all the complainers here would be getting in the line for their share . . . . if only to give to their favorite “other”!
    . . . . . In MY opinion! . . .

  104. The really irritating thing about these people and their absurd ideas is that within a few decades their ideology will be discarded as stupid and the market will return. Unfortunately many will have perished needlessly but such is ideological life, you have to break a few eggs to make the omelette.
    The Dunning-Kruger effect is at work and unfortunately cocaine is turbo-charging it.
    Only the market has value and indifference. The market only cares about success which is why this hippies fear it. They don’t even realize that their unreality is being sold in the market. Agenda 21 is ridiculous it needs to be stopped , just like Alabama has done.

  105. Andrew says:
    June 19, 2012 at 6:12 am
    Sorry but this is one of the few sites which has even noticed rio20. I aint seen any news about it anywhere which shows hoe little interest there is is AGW except here LOL
    _________________________________
    Of course you will not see anything about it in the news. The news is the propaganda arm of the Progressives, Fabians, Comunitarians, Bankers or as Dr Evans so nicely explained it The Regulating Class

  106. “The World Is in Need of Fundamental Change.” The document then offers “solutions,” which include “universal fiscal equalization” and a “massive and absolute decoupling of well-being from resource extraction and consumption.”
    communism, pure and simple!

  107. @ Pollyanna says:
    June 19, 2012 at 10:34 am
    Haven’t read all the comments . . . . But I say . . . IF . . .IF . . . ALL those really, really, really, rich people decided to give ALL THEIR . . . money to the poor, or whoever else they wanted to, including “everybody in the whole wide world” . . . . there is nothing in US law that says they can not; . . .and: all the complainers here would be getting in the line for their share . . . . if only to give to their favorite “other”!
    . . . . . In MY opinion! . . .
    ***************************************************************
    Do you really think that “all those rich people”, simply have bags of gold stashed under their beds? No. Their wealth is tied up in investments such – as businesses that employ other people. If they gave away all their wealth to “the poor”, it would simply mean more poor resulting from the economic collapse that such a give away would cause. Millions would be instantly unemployed and governments would go bankrupt trying to save everyone.
    Grow up.

  108. more soylent green! says:
    June 19, 2012 at 9:44 am
    Pure twaddle and claptrap, two words which could be used to describe nearly your entire post. Upward mobility is not created by the government. Upward mobility is created by freedom and individual effort.

    I was as surprised to hear that the US is not as economically mobile as you appear to be. Please take a moment (several actually) to read The Economist Special Report on Meritocracy in America. The Economist is a staunch right-wing free enterprise journal. It is especially ironic that many of the efforts to make America more mobile (such as federal funding for advanced education) are now factors in it becoming even more rigid.

  109. It is pretty funny when you consider the commonly held stereotype of rich people sitting in warehouses filled with coinage. Wealth is not in coinage, it’s in investment net worth. Let’s hope the wealthy do not ever decide en’ masse to cash out their net worth. Unemployment now would be like heaven on Earth compared to what would happen in a cash-out.
    As for school vouchers, regardless of no limits or strict limits, the law of unintended consequences would be in full swing. Underprivilaged students will not do as well in non-public schools, and allowing vouchers for others would turn into subsidized wellfare for people who don’t need it.

  110. @ Curiousgeorge says: . . . . . . Grow up???? . . . .
    Question is . . . . am I right???? . . . Just what do you think “IF” is for? IF not for making an specific point!

  111. Social Blunder says:
    “The Economist is a staunch right-wing free enterprise journal.”
    Not as much as it used to be. I subscribed for more than thirty years. When John Micklethwait was appointed to run the Economist, it started getting off course and I decided I could get a better range of views for free on line, so I canceled my subscription.
    As far as economics goes it’s still not too bad [but given the competition that’s easy], but Micklethwait’s specific job is to push the global warming / sustainability / climate change ideology, and he flogs them incessantly [he wrote a book preposterously titled A Future Perfect: the Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalisation]. A ‘future perfect’? Hm-m-m. His direction to subordinatess permeates every article, wherever it is possible to insert an editorial comment about “carbon”, global warming, etc., in what should be straight reporting. The insinuation is always that human activity is leading to climate disruption. No exceptions allowed.
    With such heavily biased reporting on a subject that is still shrouded with unknowns, it is best to take everything at the Economist with a tablespoon of salt. Sad, because it really used to be the best of the lot. But money corrupts, and it has corrupted the Economist no less than the climate journals.

  112. Dave Dodd says:
    June 19, 2012 at 6:28 am
    And when the Earth decides to again return to snowball status, whose wealth do they then redistribute?
    _________________________________
    If you look at the United Nations Biodiversity Treaty/ Wildlands Map Humans will be allowed in green areas. Map from http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm
    UN Biodiversity Treaty and The Wildlands Project; How the Convention on Biodiversity was defeated. (for now) http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/un-biodiversity-treaty-and-the-wildlands-project/
    Listing of various other related US laws and bills: http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/YNTKwildlandsproject_table.htm
    But as usual it is being implemented piece meal instead. Rosa Koire goes into how it is now being implemented at her site Democrats against Agenda 21 (her video is worth watching because she gives indepth info)
    Here are some of the “Wildlands Websites”
    http://www.oaec.org/wildlands-biodiversity
    http://rewilding.org/rewildit/
    So what does all that have to do with “snowball status, whose wealth do they then redistribute?”
    It has to do with making sure much of mankind is immobile and without the resources to survive a colder earth. “Culling the “Human Herd” has been a common goal of the elite for years, from Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot and the current North Korea and China. You can see the newest Eugenics/Genocide push has already started in the UK where they are getting rid of the “Useless Eaters” The USA thats to the EPA is next.

    More than one in five British households suffers fuel poverty
    ….published research strongly suggesting that some 6.3 million British households pay 10 percent or more of their household income towards their energy bills. It means that in one of the biggest economies of the world, an astonishing quarter of all households find it difficult to heat their homes….
    he UK has some of the highest poverty and child poverty figures among developed nations. Last winter was exceptionally cold and many had to spend upwards of 30-40 percent of their income on fuel.
    The government is in the process of cutting schemes to support the elderly, phasing out energy assistance for poor households via the Warm Front scheme and reducing winter fuel payments by up to £100. This will lead to the deaths of thousands more elderly people. In 2009/10, nine elderly people died every hour from cold-related illnesses. In just a four-month period, 25,400 elderly people died in England and Wales, plus 2,760 in Scotland. The UK has the highest winter death rate in northern Europe; worse than much colder countries such as Finland and Sweden.

    Freezing the old to death is one way of getting rid of all those Baby boomers and older that are a drain on government wealfare and heathcare systems and no longer contribute to “Society” aka the wallets of the regulating class.

  113. @ Curiousgeorge and then . . . I run across this . . . the Republicans said.”The public release of private donor information exposes citizens to possible harassment and intimidation by those who oppose the goals of the charitable organization.”
    GOP senators press IRS to keep nonprofit donors secret
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/233267-gop-senators-press-irs-to-keep-non-profit-donors-secret
    You just got to TRY to ‘love’ them . . .

  114. Life is change. All life takes from the environment and gives something different back, thus changing the environment. Consequently, sustainability and life are not compatable. Life is dynamic, and systems supporting life most also be dynamic. The systems focussed in this article are extremely rigid. They will not support life.
    How do these people define sustainability? When I hear the word, I do not think of living things. Someone please tell me what the word means to these Rio types. Seriously…what is their definition?

  115. Gail Combs says:
    June 19, 2012 at 11:25 am
    “””Culling the “Human Herd” has been a common goal of the elite for years, from Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot”” “”UK where they are getting rid of the “Useless Eaters”””
    Just for the record: “Useless Eaters”= “The DisObedient” “In-Subordinate”

  116. Smokey says:
    June 19, 2012 at 11:24 am

    When John Micklethwait was appointed to run the Economist, it started getting off course…

    You will be relieved the article was published in 2004, two years prior to Micklethwait becoming editor-in-chief. And the article doesn’t use the word climate once.

  117. “…I believe it’s been demonstrated that the US spends far more per capita on healthcare with far less benefit, because of course the profit motive drives the principle of least possible service for highest possible cost. That might b acceptable in other areas of commerce, but when it comes to people’s health, it obviously isn’t good for anyone…”

    Oh!? Got any citations on that squidly? Make sure it includes all costs for identical services; especially backroom administrative.
    Funny, something about working with contractors in the Fed’s services. I worked with folks from a number of countries. It took me by surprise one day when a British worker said he’d been waiting to come to the states on contract. Said he needed dental work and he wanted quality work and materials with the best tools. Then another English temp went and had LASIK done. Same reasons. After that I shouldn’t have been surprised, but another friend from up north in Canada who had regaled me with how cheap and freely prescribed antibiotics were and how codeine medicines were avaible across the counter; well, he mentioned that he was waiting for a several week trip to the states for him to schedule surgery in down here. Something about him not needing it enough and therefore a year or more away on schedule up there. Oh yeah, that universal slavery called universal healthcare is such a benefit, unless you’re really sick or old. Every thing run by the government or micromanaged by the government is performed cheapest yet remains at the pinnacle of science advancement. What a joke!!!
    Taxation without representation!
    Oh yeah, wave that flag in the United States! Should go across well.
    Sic semper tyrannis
    Funny enough, that’s on the flag in the state I live in. I do endorse that notion in full!
    Liberty Or Death – Dont Tread On Me
    Another saying used by a local town. Part of the statement comes from a patriot named Patrick Henry who was a member of the ‘First Virginia Regiment of 1775’.
    In America there beats a heart resistant to socialism as the world powers want to install it. Tyranny under all/any other name. Many of these rustic and perhaps primitive citizens not only initiated but to this day still contribute to the idea of “wildlife restoration”. Their contributions are a tax and a substantial one that was developed/agreed with the taxed in advance. When the NGO’s claim wildlife restoration in America, whether game, non-game, fish, amphibian, creature, they are really referring to the achievements of America’s sportsmen and then claiming credit. Give money to the NGO’s who only must make an effort at education and it mainly goes to their administration and lobbying.
    If you check some of the legislation currently making the rounds in Congress, you’ll note some that seek to gut the UN and Rio efforts in advance. I’ve already signed petitions to my reps that they support full evisceration. Enjoy that thought!
    We have another belief here. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” One of those remarks by those silly Englishmen whose wisdom we primitives revere, someone named ‘Sir John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton’, 1st Baron Acton, KCVO, DL A saying that goes along very well with those tattered old documents that we Americans admired so much when we freely plagiarized them. You might have heard of some of them; ‘Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta and Bill of Rights 1689, etc.’. All are important milestones of the English people struggling for personal freedoms and yes, we here in the states are appreciative. I can’t help it if you pinkos are so eager to give your freedoms to what is currently called the third world. Got your family’s positions guaranteed by that corruptible head of a socialist dysfunctional appointed group in power yet? Better hurry, I’m sure there are many family, friends, friends of friends or just plain familiar people with graft to be placed if you’re not quick to lay some grease on the right palms.

  118. Any time I see the word ‘Justice’ and it’s not carved into a limestone building or on the base of a bronze statue, I check my hip pocket to see if my wallet is still there. Odds are the true meaning is ‘Injustice’ if you’re the one with money in your pocket.

  119. @ Joe Clarke . . . . “Seriously…what is their definition?”
    What a good start!!!!! . . but, for most a conversation ender!!! [Insert] Deer in the headlight stare . . [Here]

  120. Sounds like Mao’s culture revolution. Scary.
    Don’t we ever learn from history.

  121. Rio+20 will in all likelihood end as the same dismal failure as all the previous iterations of these UN confabs have, but the people involved know and accept that, and they already have the garden spot picked out for the next “once in a lifetime” gathering to solve the world’s problems. Although overall failure is a given each of these meetings manages to extract a few concessionary crumbs from the developed nations participating, crumbs that still amount to billions and provide the seed money for the impenetrably named bureaucratic fiefdoms who provide the underlying justifications for each succeeding meeting. Although the worldwide resistance to this nonsense keeps winning the individual battles, we are clearly still losing the war.
    As I have pointed out many times in the past, these folks are in it for the long haul. They have been at it for more than a century, and actually for all the millenia of human existence, if you include their philosophical brethren who share their view that the proper role of people in relation to their governors is to be an obedient subject. The American experiment was and still is the only “revolution” that succeeded, at least partially at attempting to overturn that notion and make the governors subject to the people, which is why America has has always been the primary focus of their enmity and loathing. When our Founders created our Constitutional system they all warned that though it would provide an opportunity for Liberty, the price to be paid for that opportunity would be eternal vigilance against those that would always be striving to usurp it. Unfortunately, the inexorable human drive for tyrannical power is up against an equally consistent human tendency for those who do get to enjoy the fruits of Liberty to only be really concerned about maintaining it when the potential loss affects them in a very personal way. In the full context of human history our attempt at a republic has endured longer than similar efforts of the past, but our all too human complacency suggests its continuing endurance is very much an open question.
    Those who suggest that these concerted and continuing efforts to inflict a global autocracy are too insane to succeed must ignore the entire sweep of human history that clearly demonstrates that their success is not at all uncertain, but absent an equally concerted and consistent resistance, it is almost inevitable. Admittedly no one has achieved dominance of the entire planet in the past, but the tools and weapons available to the tyrant class in the present world are much more sophisticated and capable than anything that has gone before and assuming that the world population will automatically rise to halt this lunacy is dangerously naive.

  122. SocialBlunder says:
    June 19, 2012 at 11:06 am
    … The Economist is a staunch right-wing free enterprise journal.

    No, it’s not. On social issues, it’s very left-leaning. Its editorial policy is self-described liberal.
    Furthermore, the article you linked to relies heavily upon the EPI, which is a progressive think tank with ties to organized labor and is a supporter of OWS.
    In all fairness, to a rabid Marxist or anarchist far-left progressive, The Economist may appear to be right-wing in comparison.

  123. UH! Smokey ?????? June 19, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    Obama-style Who pays?
    Just because people don’t pay income tax . . . does not mean they pay NO taxes!!!!!!
    All together now . . . how about sales tax, fuel tax, tag, title, property taxes . . . tobacco, liquor taxes . . . hotel room tax, fishing & hunting taxes . . .
    And I know what road you are trying to go down . . . . and it is that rosy path straight to the cliffs . . .
    “”progressive income taxation relates to the ability to pay and that relates to accumulated net wealth, and less so to what comes in (because the poor have to buy the necessities of life).””
    Progressive means to me, that the more you make the higher percentage of tax do you pay . . . for example if you had a Progressive gross receipts tax the net result would be smaller enterprises . . . . as bigger enterprises would pay higher percentages and thus over time those bigger would become smaller for tax avoidance purposes . . . . . .
    I have major problems with discussing taxation is that we as common Americans have functionally lost ability to understand the difference between a capitation . . . (head-tax for being born). . . and a direct tax . . . (that cannot be avoided and must be apportioned) . . . and an indirect tax . . . (that can be avoided & doesn’t have to be apportioned but can be divided discretionarily or God forbid apportioned) . . . further when it comes to the income tax . . .we no longer consider the income tax as imposed on the “whatever source derived” compared to/or opposed to the “profit” tax imposed on the source itself . . . .
    as Joe Clarke says . . . . “Seriously…what is their definition?”
    What a good start!!!!! . . but, for most a conversation ender!!! [

  124. and then I run across . . . . Algorithmic trading in energy markets
    http://www.risk.net/energy-risk/feature/2136141/algorithmic-trading-energy-markets
    US House panel sticks with CFTC funding cut
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/19/usa-cftc-funding-idUSL1E8HJDPY20120619
    while doing research on:
    the fact that “””CFTC said its chief economist, Andrei Kirilenko would leave … analyses of algorithmic trading and computer-driven high frequency trading.””” to go to MIT.
    Bottom line is that with the advent of computers, spread sheets and algorithms . . . these guys can game the system and have for many many generations . . . . the only way to fix this is to have a tax system that considers every single way transactions are set up to maximize profits which rob the productive capacity of this country . . .
    I wouldn’t criticize this if if our country still had a very progressive profit tax . . . . that would automatically reign in the “greed” factor and “Huck Finn” strategies that have been around for so long . . . .
    It is this same very progressive profit tax that reigned in motivations for all kinds orf wars (including economic) as well as other conquests . . .and It has funded many peaceful improvements in societies . . . like road, bridges, and crop insurance!
    Why is that so many “capitalists” forget that . . . . all wealth comes from Land, Labor, and Capital . . . . and all “Capital” came from Land and Labor first . . . .
    Profit . . . is not magic & it is measured . . . Huck Finn knew this better than Tom Sawyer who painted the fence . . .
    And the most primary property each person has is his own labor . . . regardless of how that labor manifests itself.
    So I guess if that fall into someone’s definitioin of socialist or communist . . . Oh well . . . Damn it!

  125. Pollyanna says:
    June 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    “So I guess if that fall into someone’s definitioin of socialist or communist . . . Oh well . . . Damn it!”
    If the shoe fits…..
    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/top-400-taxpayers-pay-almost-as-much-in.html
    Top 400 Taxpayers Paid Almost As Much in Federal Income Taxes in 2009 as the Entire Bottom 50%
    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/significant-turnover-in-top-400-us.html
    Significant Turnover in the Top 400 U.S. Earners; From 1992-2009, 85% Were in Just 1 or 2 Years

  126. @Pollyanna says:
    I find your writing style to be obtuse…and difficult to read….
    Regardless, you have a good grasp of redistributionist Marxist rhetoric and a typically poor grasp of basic economics and human behavior.
    When a business pays taxes, that money comes from the owners or the customers. This reduces money available in the private sector. Everything the public sector does comes from money taken from individuals and it deprives them of making choices on how to spend it.
    In other words, you have it bassackwards. High taxes reduce economic output, which means fewer jobs and lower wages. It also means less taxes collected (because overall economic activity is reduced).
    And of course, high taxes mean more of a person’s labor (their property) gets taken from them.
    Lack of profits never kept Communist nations from making war.

  127. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 8:20 am
    “I know this is the way it’s presented in the US – but I can promise you that’s not the way it operates in practice. ….. I believe it’s been demonstrated that the US spends far more per capita on healthcare with far less benefit, because of course the profit motive drives the principle of least possible service for highest possible cost. That might b acceptable in other areas of commerce, but when it comes to people’s health, it obviously isn’t good for anyone.”
    I know this is the way it is presented to those outside the U.S. You seem to fail to realize that private practice healthcare is a business. It needs to maximize income in order to be profitable. It needs to be profitable in order to compete with like healthcare businesses for patients just like any other business would do. The business owner, the doctor, must be able to hire the best support people he can and to have the latest equipment and training in order to provide the best possible care to his patients in order to stay in business. He must make sure he is adequately compensated himself in order to make it all worth while. Too often people see healthcare as a right and not a service that needs to be paid for. Too often the government gets involved and screws up compensation so that doctors are forced to make hard economic decisions. Many doctors no longer take Medicare and Medicaid patients because they are losing money on those patients. Remember, it is a business not a charity (although the vast majority of doctors do charity work). People do not have a right to healthcare, they only have a right to take care of themselves. If they can’t then they have to pay for the services they need. It is just that simple.

  128. To clarify what in wiki its’ “””Taken literally, the widow’s donation of one mite could have been by obligation, because she could not have given any less. Following this reasoning, some interpreters suggest that Jesus sits down in judgment “opposite” (over against, in opposition to) the treasury; the lesson drawn emphasizes that, while people are impressed with the large sums that are put in, they did not notice that the Temple took half of what the “poor widow” had to live on.”””

  129. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
    But what’s wrong with universal health care?
    It depends upon what “healthcare” is – see Cuba’s where Fidel had to get a Spanish doctor to treat a condition which can be handled right now even in many smaller communities all over the U.S.!
    Btw, “Universal Healthcare” already exists in the U.S. without Obamacare: since the days of Hillarycare, I’ve still been waiting for just one valid example of a person not being treated because of their inability to pay. Essentially, this is illegal because of the ethical and legal duty to treat according to “the standard of care” once a condition is diagnosed, which itself must happen in any visit to an E.R., perhaps as a last resort, where an “evaluation” must occur without regard to anyone’s ability to pay for it.
    I never saw anyone not treated because of an inability to pay during my ~30 years of E.R. experience. We would directly arrange for the next level of care on the spot. If needed, I would talk to the next level M.D. myself, and always advised everyone to come back or call the E.R. if there were problems.
    “Free” care costs are absorbed by increased charges on everyone else, charitable services – where the Catholic Hospitals are crucial, and flat out free care on the part of very many providers of medical services.
    On the other hand, “Universal Healthcare” provided by the Gov’t, such as under Obamacare, immediately politicizes every disease and treatment, as the HHS mandate for the provision of “free” birth control just proved!
    In other words, if you are getting something “free”, something else is either more costly or maybe no longer even available.
    Obamacare also changes the current standard of care from “the provision of the highest quality of care possible” to a “cost-benefit” calculus – where, apart from a decision being made on the basis of some pseudo-scientific “study” or purely subjective whim, in fact for many conditions “doing nothing” would be indicated, since statistically most people either get better or manage to absorb the cost themselves in terms of decreased functional quality of life, decreased economic productivity, and decreased life spans, a.k.a., “Death Panels”.
    In short, intentionally created scarcity under Gov’t Unversal Healthcare only results in an increased ability for pre-Enlightenment Totalitarians to control people.
    Wake up, quidsapio, you are being duped into Totalitarian control through another intentional program of “perception is reality” Thought Control Propaganda.
    Hasn’t the intentionally unscientific “mainstream Climate Science” CO2CAGW Propaganda Operation hoax taught you anything?

  130. I’d like to see a sustainable stock market where I can play but someone would probably want to tear it down.

  131. more soylent green! says:
    June 19, 2012 at 1:35 pm .
    . . . . “Lack of profits never kept Communist nations from making war.”
    Really . . . that’s why in history ‘they’ would functionally run around the country saying . . .”””Like what you have done with the place . . . . a real improvement . . . now move!!!!!! “”” Lack of . . . is what makes many a motivation . . .
    How about . . . “I am about to make you a deal you can’t refuse”!
    Further, history demonstrates often . . . after the pusuit of profits has been satiated with wealth the new objective is just plain & abject power!
    Could you define “obtuse…and difficult to read”1 I know my spelling is sloppy . . . in too much of a hurry most of time . . .

  132. “the massive investments needed to shift to a totally renewable energy and resource-based economy will require “massive de-growth (shrinkage) of products, sectors and activities that do not pass the sustainability test” –”
    Sustainability is impossible in all cases. The fact is that nothing is sustainable as the world in every way is constantly changing. Sustainability is the new manmade global warming, another political myth. Imagine bureaucrats trying to manage, by regulations, of course, a sustainable economy—try balancing 10 squirming kids on the tip of your finger—yep, that not gonna happen, AT ALL.
    Man loves status quo. The first time we count foxes per acre, fine. But, if the number changes when we count them next, we get upset. Actually, only those who do not know biology and predator/prey dynamics get upset.
    Sustainability is the status quo tendency on steroids and applied by the UN!
    Sea gulls are a constant along the sea coast. In the 1970s, a bird flu wiped out 75% of the population. It was not terribly obvious as you could still attract a gull fairly quickly by throwing food in the water, just not as many. But, the chicks born in the next several years had plenty of food and grew to be like Baby Hueys, more than twice the size of their parents. These immature gulls were clumsy bullies and blundered about, driving the adults away. Several years later, these same gulls were mature and able to get more food due to their size and even from the now smaller immature gulls, who could not compete with these giants. It took close to 20 years for the effects of this one disease event to level off and, of course, another could occur at any time, if not already. Imagine how meaningless and probably damaging regulations to manage the population would have been with the 20 years of changes that occurred naturally. There is no way that bureaucrats would wait 20 years before they start to meddle and screw things up even worse.
    Most people do not know that one of the main factors that collapsed the USSR was the fact that they were trying to manage an economy by bureaucratically fixing prices. It became entirely impossible to adjust over 36,000,000 prices every day and not make mistakes that caused amazing damage, surpluses, shortages. The “market” was so unstable that factories tended to have huge raw materials and parts inventory as they did not know when the next order would arrive. This represents huge value sitting around doing nothing.
    The UN wants to manage the world. Be scared, very scared.

  133. quidsapio says:
    June 19, 2012 at 8:20 am
    “I believe it’s been demonstrated that the US spends far more per capita on healthcare with far less benefit, because of course the profit motive drives the principle of least possible service for highest possible cost. That might b acceptable in other areas of commerce, but when it comes to people’s health, it obviously isn’t good for anyone.”
    There are a number of reasons health care costs more in the U. S. and the profit motive has little to do with it, and actually is the one thing that helps keep the cost from being even more out of control. If you doubt this consider LASIX eye surgery. It has always been an elective procedure and almost entirely uncovered by health insurance policies. It has also been one of the few areas of health care where the availability has risen and the cost declined continually since it first became available.
    U.S. healthcare expenditures are high because on average we use more of it than almost anyone else in the world. There was a news story out a few months ago about a premature infant born at a birth weight of less than a pound who was going home to its family. Such stories are not that uncommon in the U.S., but NHS type systems around the world don’t even attempt to save those infants. In the rest of the world such infants are headed to a dumpster not a NICU.
    Health insurance costs in the U.S. continue to rise exponentially because politicians at all levels continue to mandate that policies include coverages that most policy purchasers don’t need and don’t want. The kerfuffle about contraceptive coverage is just the most recent and BTW the demand for it is analogous to requiring that your auto insurance reimburse you every time you fill up the tank, change the oil, or even slip a buck to the homeless guy with a squeegee to get him away from your windshield. Other notable past efforts include sex change treatments, unlimited drug rehab and, if you dig deep enough almost anything else that can generate a constituency to kick in enough contributions to garner the interest of a few key politicians.
    Only a few decades ago more than half of all health care expenditures in the U.S. were out of pocket to the recipients, now almost none of them are. The point where the rapid decline in that figure began correlates quite closely with the point where health care expenditures began their explosive inflation. If you think who is actually paying the tab has no effect on the cost consider this
    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/markets-in-everything-medical-cash.html
    Markets in Everything: Medical Cash Discounts
    “At the Los Alamitos Medical Center, you get a 90% discount for paying cash for a CT scan of the abdomen, $250 cash vs. $2,400 average insurance price, read more here in the LA Times.”
    The included chart includes a half dozen less dramatic examples, but covered only a few of the hospitals in the limited LA area.

  134. Harold Pierce Jr says:
    June 19, 2012 at 3:07 am
    Then we can kick the leeches out of NYC and send them packing to Europe.

    You are a great fan of cruel and unusual punishments, are not you?
    Send them to Harare instead. Climate is perfect, government suits them, financial system is post-industrial, overconsumption unknown and they can’t possibly be so racists as to reject the opportunity.

  135. Pollyanna says:
    June 19, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    Dave Wendt says:
    June 19, 2012 at 1:33 pm
    Your links . . . . evidence of this kind of Federal Income Tax GIGO argument. I call it the “Widow’s Mite” Paradox . . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow's_mite
    Accounting wise it doesn’t mattter whether your paying “God” or Uncle Sam!
    From Wiki
    “In the story, a widow donates two small coins, while wealthy people donate much more.[2] Jesus explains to his disciples that the small sacrifices of the poor mean more to God than the extravagant donations of the rich.[2]”
    The bottom 50% of U.S. tavpayers can hardly be described as “the poor”. Relative to the rest of the world we here in the U.S. are all 1 percenters. People who fit within the definition of poverty here enjoy, on average, a lifestyle beyond what is available to even the European middle class

  136. BTW. it really does ” mattter whether your paying “God” or Uncle Sam!”. A religious tithe is an entirely voluntary contribution, government enforced charity is enabled by armed robbery. And the ability to control at least somewhat whether your charity is going to people for whom you have at least some sympathy is not a trivial distinction.

    • “A religious tithe is an entirely voluntary contribution”
      . . . .today . . . sorta . . . but, not back then my friend . . . . and the 10% was a minimum . . . . commonly known as “the flat tax” of today . . .

    • “And the ability to control at least somewhat whether your charity is going to people for whom you have at least some sympathy is not a trivial distinction.”
      I think US tax law has tried to accomodate that principle . . . . after it has accomplished getting the money it needs to survive itself . . . as it is “. . . “a system built to protect the rights of the individual”

  137. Gail Combs says: @ June 19, 2012 at 11:25 am
    “””Culling the “Human Herd” has been a common goal of the elite for years, from Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot”” “”UK where they are getting rid of the “Useless Eaters”””
    _________________________
    Pollyanna says: @ June 19, 2012 at 11:37 am
    Just for the record: “Useless Eaters”= “The DisObedient” “In-Subordinate”
    __________________________
    That is just another definition of most of the older people who have had the scales fall from their eyes. The Baby Boomer ex-military types are the most dangerous. Trained, not so old they are debilitated or senile and they have nothing to lose and a family to protect. Therefore the Department of Homeland Security has their eye on ex-military and what they call “Rightwing Extremists” That is people who finally woke up and notice something is wrong.
    Unfortunately I am not making the following up.
    From the Department of Homeland Security:

    Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
    (U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI.
    (U) Scope
    (U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship…..
    (U) Key Findings
    (U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
    — (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
    — (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
    (U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
    — (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
    — (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.
    (U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
    — (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
    concern to law enforcement.
    — (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities…..
    *FOOTNOTE:
    (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and
    those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

    In reading this report, there some very glaring assumptions. The biggest is that all the “extremist beliefs” are based on RACISM.
    1. Anti-Obama sentiment is assumed to be because of his race. No mention is made of his politics or his part non-American birth and upbringing.
    2. The fractional reserve central bank and “One World Government” is always linked to anti-Semitism. I really love this part: “…the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” And then the report goes on to say “…Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy….” Nothing like contradicting yourself in the same short report! They really do think we are complete idiots and can not see the events hitting us over the head.
    It gets even better, seems Climate Scientists are not the only ones using “The Goat Ate my Homework Excuse Book” when caught with their pants down… ALG Blasts Missouri Information Analysis Center For Retaining No Records of Erroneous MIAC “Modern Militia Movement” Report: In the “Militia Movement” advisory, police across Missouri were told to keep an eye out for Americans who were highly concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve. Much of the MIAC report comes verbatim from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
    JunkScience.com mentions the Southern Poverty Law Center

    ….Demonizing Americans who want to stop UN Agenda 21, The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the effort a “big lie,” and criticizes the resolution passed by the Republican National Committee in January 2012 in which policymakers inform Americans of the destructive strategies of “sustainable development.”
    …If we are to believe the Southern Poverty Law Center, and we do not, the UN agreement is a “rather benign, non-binding plan calling for governments to develop plans to meet current needs for natural resources without threatening the survival of future generations.”
    Agenda 21 is so “benign” that it was not debated or ratified by Congress. Presidents Clinton and Obama passed Executive Orders in order to force the implementation of UN Agenda 21 in the U.S. Parts of UN Agenda 21 have been included in legislation or have been implemented administratively….

    That certainly explains why ordinary concerned citizens who haven’t swallowed a watermelon are seen as the “ENEMY” by the Southern Poverty Law Center and why they want to called them “Right Wing Extremists” (or in our case “Deniers” ) placing local law enforcement on “Alert” to hassle people. More important this whole exercise about “Homegrown Terrorists” was clearly for the News Media so people like the Tea Party could be labeled “Kooks” and as potential “terrorist threats” thereby marginalizing the sector of people who are intelligent enough to think for themselves.

    “In both the case of Missouri and the Department of Homeland Security, Americans were targeted by law enforcement based upon their political beliefs, and not on their active involvement with terrorist operations. If this continues, the American people will continue to question whether their government is a danger to them,” Wilson concluded.

    The US government keeps pulling crap like the above, like Fast and Furious, like the AIG/Banker Bailout Scandal the frantic printing of money by the FED and the mounting Federal Debt and then wonders why the average citizen is starting to take notice. Nothing like losing your job and being labeled a potential “Enemy of the State” to wake a person up.
    You do not need the shenanigans of the EPA, Hansen or Agenda 21 to start thinking The US government has gone completely nuts with this kind of stuff happening. The intricate tangles of interlocking information is incredible. All of it designed to funnel wealth and control to the “Chosen” few.

    • Durn . . that’s a lot of copy and paste . . . links work just find . . .
      I have heard and read about all this rhetoric before . . . if I see your point, you are saying:
      Call a thug a thug . . . he’ll tell you your a whiner . . . or a crybaby!
      Call a rapist a rapist . . . . and you just became “someone asking for it”!
      Accuse someone of embezzlement . . . they will say it was a gift . . .
      Call out a bully . . . He was “just kidding”!
      If that is not what your trying to say . . . sorry I misunderstood!

  138. @Pollyanna….
    Seriously…. What’s with all…. The … Are you trying to parody something?
    It’s just … A bunch… Of thought fragments strung together… Try writing in complete sentences…. If you…. Want people to understand you or take you… Seriously.

    • Are you passive agressive or something? You want ME to take “More Soylent Green!” seriously”?
      Maybe you are just A.I. and all the “. . . . . .:” makes an actual human technician have to show up!
      If you are human, lighten up! This is not a forum for facade’ or proper english practice . . . it is a forum for communication. . . . . or at least that was my understanding!

  139. Pollyanna says:
    June 19, 2012 at 3:54 pm
    “And the ability to control at least somewhat whether your charity is going to people for whom you have at least some sympathy is not a trivial distinction.”
    I think US tax law has tried to accomodate that principle . . . . after it has accomplished getting the money it needs to survive itself . . . as it is “. . . “a system built to protect the rights of the individual”
    Really? If it restricted itself to those activities that the Constitution stipulates it be limited too, it would have much more than ” the money it needs to survive itself “, but that horse died a long time ago. While it was designed to be “a system built to protect the rights of the individual” that has also gone the way of the Dodo and we now have as President a man who ardently believes that the “negative” restrictions on Federal power are not the central gift and abiding genius of our Constitution, but a primary weakness and an antiquated construct which we urgently need to abandon forthwith. In the present moment, nearly two thirds of what our Federal government does is to write checks for “transfer payments” i.e. “wealth redistribution”. The percentage continues to rise dramatically as we speak. Right now Government spending at all levels amounts to 45% of GDP an increase from just 40% when OBH took office or 112.5%. The only thing provably “unsustainable” in the current situation is the accelerating burden of our bureaucratic overlords.

    • When they start auditing Government Sponsored Agreements . . . for money skimming operations . . . I might fall for your assertions . . . and when they finally fix the TAXation policy I might fall on your assertions . . . . All just GIGO right now . . . just like MAN MADE Global warming/Climate change . . .
      And just like weather forcasts are based on models of causes . . . So are financial forcasts based on models of causes. It’s all the same thing . . . “just different”!
      Gee wiz . . . . fella, I don’t have to build you nucleur bomb to prove that it can be done! But, I would be a sucker to do it!

  140. Smokey, you always have the nicest graphs.
    By the way the last chart was the number of people FILING income tax returns. Currently the labor force is at a 30-year low. Only 63.7%.of the population is working. In addition a lot of small business people are not turning a profit right now and although they may be filing they are not actually paying tax. (Just heard that on the radio) so chances are less than 50% of the population is paying tax. The labor force is defined as 16 to 65 years of age.
    In January of this year

    …it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation……

    Here are some more graphs for you
    Persons not in the Labor Force ~ 12/31/2007 to 12/31/2011
    Labor Force Participation Rate

  141. Pollyanna says: @ June 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    ….“”progressive income taxation relates to the ability to pay and that relates to accumulated net wealth,…..
    _____________________________
    Yeah, people would be horrified if they ever realized just how much tax they pay without ever filing a state or federal tax return. I calculated I paid about 65% and that was just the sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax…. that I could calculate.
    The other lie is that the progressive tax taxes the rich. The rich ALREADY have their wealth nicely tucked away. Progressive tax taxes WAGES and therefore only the lower and middle classes and the flunkies of the rich.

    • Progressive tax . . . That’s why definitions are so important . . .
      Same with the definition of “wages”, but that is another day and time!

  142. Polyanna,
    [Perfect name, btw]. Got a question for you. The top 10% of wage earners [emphasis on ‘earners’] pays a whopping 71% of all individual federal taxes. The bottom half of the population pays nothing. So here’s my question:
    Exactly how much should the top 10% pay? Give me a specific number.

  143. Smokey says:
    June 19, 2012 at 7:08 pm
    “Polyanna, Exactly how much should the top 10% pay? Give me a specific number.”
    You will never get a solid answer to this question from those who believe in progressive taxes. That is because their whole belief for this type of taxation is based on ability to pay. They look at what a person has left after taxes to make their argument that the wealthy should pay a higher rate. They will always ignore the moral fairness of everyone paying the same rate, which as we all understand does make those with higher incomes pay more in taxes. Their hidden belief is that the money belongs to the government and it is only through the benevolence of the government that anyone is allowed to keep anything at all.

  144. It is mind-numbing that there are people this arrogant and condescending. Project 21 is an abomination to the human spirit and certainly deserves to be deposited in the ashcan of history.

  145. Pollyanna says:
    June 19, 2012 at 4:21 pm
    “If you are human, lighten up! This is not a forum for facade’ or proper english practice . . . it is a forum for communication. . . . . or at least that was my understanding!”
    ===========================================================================
    Pollyanna-
    I don’t know if you realize how much entertainment you are contributing to this tread. I sure I am not the only one chortling at your comments. Which is a shame, because you honestly seem to be trying to communicate your ideas.
    I consider myself only an average writer, but I have taken enough technical writing courses to know that if you want people to take you seriously, you need to express yourself in such a way that your audience can understand and grasp the idea you are presenting. Then hopefully consider the validity of the idea. It takes time and thought.
    Dashing off a few phrases and some personal attacks is not communicating. Take the time to formulate your ideas. Compose your comments on a word processor, spell check them, then copy them to the comment block. You will be surprised what a better reception you ideas will have.

    • Thank you for the “back handed” complement . . .
      you say “chortling at your comments. Which is a shame,” I am sure I can muster some shame for the [chor·tle (chôr tl). n. A snorting, joyful laugh or chuckle] . . . albeit a feigned shame.
      [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/albeit albeit … He has a very good idea, albeit a strange one. … a subordinate clause), albeit can introduce only a noun phrase, an adjectival phrase, …

  146. Pollyanna-
    One more thing. Don’t trust the spell checker, It won’t tell you you wrote “tread” when you meant “thread” or that you forgot the “‘m” when typing “I’m”. As I did in the above comment.

  147. I really just wanted to read this, but I guess I have to hop in for a second.
    Dear quidsapio, let me tell you a story. A few years back my mother finally decided to get surgery on the varices on her left left. She’s past 60 and that one was particular nasty. Given her age and background it was easy to argue that this one varix was a risk factor. So first she asked at the local hospital which is under nationalized health care. They told her they had a waiting list of one year. My parents have private insurance, so my mother asked in the roughly 60 miles away private hospital. They basically told her “when do you want your surgery?” She went private, had it removed and all is fine.
    A few years ago I had my eyes lasered. I was short-sighted, massively so. Nationalized health insurance wouldn’t pay anything, I paid it all myself. It was life-changing. My personal living quality went up ten fold easily. Three years ago I had an accident during which one of my teeth got damaged. I had it treated under my nationalized health insurance at the local nationalized clinic. That lasted for year, then what was left of the tooth simply broke off and the filling fell out. It just fell out, without any forces working on it. (I also had a look and found out that they did the root treatment completely wrong.) I went to a specialist for implants, he had a look at it and removed the tooth. Now I have an implant instead. I had to pay for that implant because the national health insurance here doesn’t pay for it. I could have gotten something else, which they would have paid for, but that thing would never have been of high quality.
    If you’re wondering, this happened in Austria. We have a nationalized healthcare, which is absolutely bankrupt, similar to the NHS in the UK. It’s true that they pay for replacements and such, always have. But none of this stuff is top of the line. You get what works and is cheap, not what is best for you. You’re a number to the bureaucrats. They’re only interested in you when they collect the taxes.

  148. Thanks, Pollyanna, for demonstrating the meaning of Lenin’s “useful idiots”.
    OK, maybe not the useful part….

    • Mike: You are correct . . . . IF, we simply seized the entire assets of everyone making a billion $ per year that alone would NOT come even close to paying for just ONE year of federal expenditure.

  149. Gail Combs says:
    June 19, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    Pollyanna says: @ June 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    ….“”progressive income taxation relates to the ability to pay and that relates to accumulated net wealth,…..
    _____________________________
    Yeah, people would be horrified if they ever realized just how much tax they pay without ever filing a state or federal tax return. I calculated I paid about 65% and that was just the sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax…. that I could calculate.
    The other lie is that the progressive tax taxes the rich. The rich ALREADY have their wealth nicely tucked away. Progressive tax taxes WAGES and therefore only the lower and middle classes and the flunkies of the rich.
    ==========
    100% of the taxes collected by the IRS, a private company created by the private company Federal Reserve as its collection arm, goes to pay the interest on the notes borrowed from the Fed Reserve by the government.
    There is no need for the Government to print notes, sell them at pennies per million, can’t remember off hand what the Fed Reserve pays for them, to then borrow them back at face value plus interest. That’s where the scam begins.
    Their charter from 1913 runs out at the end of this year…
    IIRC, the other taxes you mention are local state taxes, which I assume go to pay for state infrastructure, (or into brown envelopes and deep pockets ..). Again hazy recall, read this before I took an interest so poorly recalled, I think that there is something about taxes only possible on trade, i.e., where there is no imput to change/create a product – goes back to maritime taxation laws. So for example, a worker cannot be taxed on his labour, a baker cannot be taxed on his product, because he adds/changes something to what he buys to create the product; neither of these are straight trade.
    Re that, I think there has been put in place a contract of employment which companies have to get employees to sign which waives this non-taxable status somehow, and the companies comply because they’re not allowed to function if they don’t get this signed. Aggh, will try to find more on this in the next few days – but maybe you have that somewhere in your files?

  150. What fair share of your income, wealth, labor and other property am I entitled to, Pollyanna? How much of what you own do I deserve?
    Just curious….

    • “””What fair share of your income, wealth, labor and other property am I entitled to, Pollyanna? How much of what you own do I deserve? Just curious….”””
      Since you are going to get all “generalizations” on me . . . Here’s my answer!
      Depends on what I own, what is coming in, and where the labor and other properry I have . . . If ‘you’ are going to protect me from the thugs, who think they can seize it all, then I would say ‘you’ are entitled to a “fair” share . . which would probably be haggled over (the old “if it weren’t for me, you would have nothing argument”).
      I can not do all the “depends” (same as What ifs) ad infinitem . . . It’s like trying to solve for PI in base 10!
      For me, this is a trick question . . . and I understand the M.O.! But, IF you are sincere, please accept my apologies. I wonder what prompted you down this rosy path!

  151. Myrrh says:
    June 20, 2012 at 5:19 am
    There is no need for the Government to print notes, sell them at pennies per million, can’t remember off hand what the Fed Reserve pays for them, to then borrow them back at face value plus interest. That’s where the scam begins.
    ==================
    In effect the US people are paying to borrow their own money back from private banks. Instead of this money going to pay for government, the US people are paying taxes to pay the interest on their own money.
    Most people accept this because of the name “Federal Reserve”. They assume the Fed is a government institution. It is not, it is a privately owned bank.
    If the Fed’s name was changed to reflect the facts, such as “Private Extremely Extremely Rich People’s Bank” folks might just see the picture clearer.

  152. Ferd, the Federal Reserve is the banks bank. We aren’t borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury issues bonds, not the Fed. The Fed buys bonds.
    The Fed has a lot of issues, such as no accountability, and possibly doing things outside their charter. But nothing you said is even close to true.

  153. Edohiguma says:
    June 20, 2012 at 4:08 am
    I really just wanted to read this, but I guess I have to hop in for a second.
    Dear quidsapio, let me tell you a story.
    Just as an addendum to the short dialogue I had with quidsapio yesterday, you might find this pice from yesterday’s DailyMail interesting.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html?ICO=most_read_
    Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
    Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
    Treatment on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours
    Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’
    NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.
    Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.
    He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.
    It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.
    It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours.
    There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.
    Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.
    He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yM1HvSji

  154. Pollyana: It’s a simple question. There is no depends about it. What part of your income do I deserve? How much of the fruits of your labor do you own, and how much are mine?

    • If ‘you’ are going to protect me from the thugs, who think they can seize it all, then I would say ‘you’ are entitled to a “fair” share . . which would probably be haggled over (the old “if it weren’t for me, you would have nothing argument”).
      I can not do all the “depends” (same as What ifs) ad infinitem . . . It’s like trying to solve for PI in base 10!
      For me, this is a trick question . . . and I understand the M.O.! But, IF you are sincere, please accept my apologies. I wonder what prompted you down this rosy path!
      Are you slow? or is that you think I am . . . It’s a simple question. There is no depends about it. Have you quit beating your dog yet?

  155. Here’s a rule of thumb… Whenever you see “justice” prefixed with some adjective… you know it’s anything but just…. Just an smokescreen for Marxism, that is….

  156. Pollyanna,
    I have asked this question repeatedly on WUWT, and no one has ever given me a percentage:
    “Exactly how much should the top 10% pay? Give me a specific number.”
    Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever provided a specific answer.
    I think I know the reason: you are consumed with envy at the success of other people. What you really want is to take all their earned assets away from them, because you personally do not have what it takes to be successful [BTW, I am not nearly ‘rich’]. You are jealous of their success.
    You plainly covet your neighbors’ goods. And if you cannot get your hands on their assets by hook or by crook, then the next best thing is for the State to confiscate what they have earned. Right?
    If I’m wrong, quit being a hypocrite and give me a number. What specific percentage of the federal tax burden should be paid by the top 10% of wage earners? And should 50% of the population pay zero federal taxes? Be honest.

    • Smokey says:
      June 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm
      It’s a simple question. There is no depends about it. Have you quit beating your dog yet?
      You say: “”I think I know the reason: you are consumed with envy at the success of other people. What you really want is to take all their earned assets away from them, because you personally do not have what it takes to be successful [BTW, I am not nearly ‘rich’]. You are jealous of their success.””
      That would be quite a leap to a conclusion . . . just as “”I think I know the reason: you are consumed with envy at the success of other people. What you really want is to take all their earned assets away from them, because you personally do not have what it takes to be successful [BTW, I am not nearly ‘rich’]. You are jealous of their success.”” this is a false conclusion.
      and this “”If I’m wrong, quit being a hypocrite and give me a number. What specific percentage of the federal tax burden should be paid by the top 10% of wage earners? And should 50% of the population pay zero federal taxes?””” Be honest is a bait and switch . . . just like . . . Have you quit beating your dog yet?
      Last ditch effort to try to clarify my perspective . . . IF, you are inheriting all your money from somewhere . . . and a tax is levied for that inheritance . . . . are YOU paying any tax . . .?
      And no one has ever given YOU a percentage: . . .“Exactly how much should the top 10% pay? Give me a specific number.” IS a very poorly formed question . . especially since it depends on several factors therefor is a variable! I don’t even care what your answer is because it is rationally irrelevant, extraneous, & immaterial.
      If you wanted to be serious . . . I would first ask you to define a wage earner under current tax law. . . but I bet you would think that the definition is rationally irrelevant, extraneous, & immaterial.
      when in fact: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/C/24/3401
      Search 26 U.S.C. § 3401 : US Code – Section 3401: Definitions
      (a) Wages
      For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means . . . .

    • @Smokey says:
      June 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm
      It’s an add on to:
      when in fact: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/C/24/3401
      Search 26 U.S.C. § 3401 : US Code – Section 3401: Definitions
      (a) Wages
      For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means . . . .
      because if you keep reading it says: . . .except that such term shall not include
      remuneration paid –
      then there are 22 points . .
      and then as you read on there is
      “The term “wages” includes any amount includible in gross income of
      an employee under section 409A and payment of such amount shall be
      treated as having been made in the taxable year in which the amount
      is so includible.”

  157. LazyTeenager,
    As Americans they (and the rest of us) are beholden to no master. Exactly why the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was written.
    Hope you are at least thankful there are people willing to go in harm’s way to maintain your right to express sometimes assinine opinions whenever you want.

  158. “the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives ” Come on, you can say it. They’re just a bunch of communists wanting to be on top of the heap with the entire world as their slaves.
    [SNIP: No, Galane, we are not going to promote that. -REP]

  159. @Smokey
    I’ll bite. $30k and up; 12% of wages. Below $30k; 5% of wages. No deductions. Everyone should have skin in the game. Everyone.
    I don’t see why the Federales can’t manage the mint, the military, and courts with that take. They can buy a lot of fencing with the leftover money. The other fluff programs? No business of the Feds anyway. I figure the old dead white guys that started us off have been turning in their graves since at least the mid-1800s.
    (See… Pollyanna… that… wasn’t so “difficult”)

  160. Well, let’s see.
    Right now, about 48% of the (US) population pays no federal income taxes at all, but receive “rebates” and “tax credits” from the rest. That is, the people earning the least pay NO taxes at all. In addition, many (if not all) at the poverty line and below are eligible for and receive governments handouts and programs and subsidies.
    At the top, right now, the upper 20% of earners pay over 50% of their salaries in combined federal, state, and local wage taxes, plus local sales taxes, local property taxes, national gas taxes, telephone fees, garbage taxes, recycling fees for batteries and tires, medicare, social security, and toll roads and the like..
    5% of wages? I’d settle for a tax cut to “only” 45% of wages …….

  161. Do over, Smokey.
    I crunched some WAG numbers based on some vague semblence of reality and added in for the fence and it looks like 7% & 3% will keep the lights on in the U.S.
    @RACookPE1978: Yeah, that cut would be nice. You’ll have to pardon my fantasizing about flat rates for a limited government, but someone needed to show Pollyanna the way to the light. “Smokey… ‘asked’ an… “””easy question”” and it’s been more fun watching the avoidance contortions by Pollyanna than it is watching my cat chase a laser pointer; all over it but never getting hold of it.
    On a brighter note, at least the Federal gas tax is per gallon and not a percent of sale price. That’s a rare slip-up by the politicians. I’m sure it won’t happen again.

  162. @Smokey & H.R.
    Neither of you give a flip about what I think is FAIR! To show “Pollyanna the way to the light”!?
    Fine, then tell me why there is an entire CHAPTER 24- COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES . . if it wasn’t important or significant?

  163. Pollyanna, I thought about it a while and gave Smokey what I thought was a fair tax on wages for the top 10% of wage earners. That was the question he asked of you (and elsewhere in the past).
    I threw in the lower percentiles while I was at it. Smokey didn’t ask, but I threw in that as a freebie. Smokey also didn’t ask, but I at least alluded to what my suggested level of taxation should fund.
    CHAPTER 24 – COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES won’t change much, if at all, based on the percentage of tax levied on wages. It may or may not be important or significant depending on the percent tax on wages being kicked around. For example, if you suggest that the top 10% of wage earners be taxed 100% on wages over $85k, then I’d get the tax money quickly and directly from the employer before it disappears. If you were to suggest that the tax on the top 10% of wage earners should be 2%, then perhaps CHAPTER 24 could be condensed to “Wage earners shall send a check to the IRS by February 14th, Red Envelope optional.” So CHAPTER 24 can wait.
    So now that I’ve blazed a path through the minefield of answering Smokey’s straightforward question and demonstrating how easy it is to answer a direct question with a direct answer (bonus opinions thrown in, gratis), you are cordially invited to answer Smokey’s question. Your avoidance has been going on long enough that inquiring minds, including mine, really do want to know what you think the top 10% of wage earners should pay in taxes.

    • @Smokey & H.R.
      . . . . “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” –Thomas Jefferson to J. Madison, 1785.
      http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
      Now, would you please define “fair”? How about “fat chance”?

  164. more soylent green! says:
    June 20, 2012 at 6:38 am
    What fair share of your income, wealth, labor and other property am I entitled to, Pollyanna? How much of what you own do I deserve?
    Just curious….
    more soylent green! says:
    June 20, 2012 at 11:21 am
    Pollyana: It’s a simple question. There is no depends about it. What part of your income do I deserve? How much of the fruits of your labor do you own, and how much are mine?

    ANSWER TO BOTH OF THE ABOVE: I’m not entitled to any of your property, income, wealth or labor. The fruits of your labor belong to you. I don’t deserve any of it, any you aren’t entitled or deserving of anyone else’s, get it?

  165. Ok! Now, how to divy up the fruits of “Mother Nature”! Land, for planting, Trees, for heating & shelter, Wild Critters, for eating, Water, for drinking? Etc. . . Etc. . . Etc. . . (as the king would say)

  166. @Allen MacRae
    From your quoted text: “Importantly, an increasing number of scientists are affirming the new findings which demonstrate it’s not possible for CO2 – or any so-called “greenhouse” gas – to “trap” energy in Earth’s atmosphere – a frequently cited claim of global warming alarmists. Critics of the GHE say the latest findings comport with satellite data and indicate that Earth emits as much infrared heat as it receives from the sun and thereby proves there is no magical atmospheric effect in play making our planet warmer than it would otherwise be. Despite these groundbreaking new findings dozens of government agencies are avoiding addressing them.”
    I am given to understand that the ‘heat signature’ in the troposphere at 8-16 km altitude that is supposed to be the hallmark effect of CO2 trapping heat in the tropics is completely absent. I am not saying this based on the excellent paper on the subject by Monckton, but on the coming AR5 which will avoid the topic completely. Instead of producing for the first time the evidence-based science (known as ‘measurements’) that shows unequivocally that the heat signature of CO2’s ‘greenhouse effect’ is present, they will, rather, not show the science that demonstrates clearly the hot spot simply does not exist and apparently never did. They will concentrate their comments on the other parts of the troposphere where nothing is supposed to be happening and show that, well… nothing is happening.
    I must say I am really disappointed in the IPCC which, following ClimateGate, should have pulled up their socks and taken out some of the most obvious fraud and weasel wording. If something as essential to the CAGW business as that ‘heat being captured’ is absent, how can any of the rest of the report by viewed as meaningful? If there is no discernible ‘greenhouse effect’ with its ‘back radiation’ then a large error in judgement has been made about the dangers posed by elevated CO2 concentrations. A weighty tome that contains absolutely fundamental errors and omits the most revealing data has no value save as a door stop and later, a paper supply for the 2-holer.

  167. Pollyanna the mealymouthed says:
    June 21, 2012 at 10:47 am
    “Now, would you please define ‘fair’? How about ‘fat chance’?”
    Pollyanna, I will be happy to answer your questions. But first, you have to stop acting like a slippery eel, and give me the numbers I’m asking you for. Because I asked first. [My questions to you: What specific percentage of the federal tax burden should be paid by the top 10% of wage earners? And should 50% of the population pay zero federal taxes?]
    We both know why you’re avoiding answering. It’s difficult being on the hot seat. But give it a try.
    Otherwise, we know the real answer: if you could, you would simply steal all the ‘rich’ folks’ assets and pocket them for yourself. Then you would be rich, and they would be poor. But if that is not possible, your second choice would be revel in the schadenfreude of seeing their earned income confiscated by the government – all of it – if you could make that happen. Because you shamelessly covet your neighbors’ goods. Your green-eyed envy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
    I am not rich. But I know that no poor person creates jobs. And jobs are what we desperately need to get the economy up and running again. You are shooting yourself in the foot by hating those who earn more than you do. You’re like Obama, when he was asked why he didn’t lower tax rates since lower tax rates always result in more government revenues. His answer: it’s a matter of ‘fairness’. You would rather have what you perceive to be ‘fair’ than to have a growing economy, high employment, and everyone getting a bigger piece of the pie. I cannot imagine a more selfish attitude.

  168. Smokey says: @ June 21, 2012 at 4:08 pm
    ….I am not rich. But I know that no poor person creates jobs. And jobs are what we desperately need to get the economy up and running again. You are shooting yourself in the foot by hating those who earn more than you do. You’re like Obama, when he was asked why he didn’t lower tax rates since lower tax rates always result in more government revenues. His answer: it’s a matter of ‘fairness’. You would rather have what you perceive to be ‘fair’ than to have a growing economy, high employment, and everyone getting a bigger piece of the pie. I cannot imagine a more selfish attitude.
    ________________________________________
    You missed the corollary. More Taxes=> More Bureaucrats => More RED TAPE => LESS business => LESS jobs.
    Ridiculous bureaucracy is killing the American Dream
    Also Pollyanna still hasn’t figured out the difference between the working stiffs (wage earners) who pay taxes and the idle Rich who OWN the corporations and have all sorts of ways to dodge taxes.

Comments are closed.