Because it is by definition a system the people can change if at any point they don’t like the results. Makes all the difference.
this is a derail.
you can’t explain away the collectivist mind-set by saying 2 different historical versions had differences, economic, whatever. both are identical in what weight he individual has relative to the collective; none.
what i’m saying in this thread is that freedom is like pregnancy, you have it or you dont. you cant be a little bit free. you cant argue that naziism gives you a little more freedom than communism or vice versa, because there is no such thing as a little more freedom.
another thing i’m saying is that 2 greatest things about America, and our heritage, and traditions are 1] freedom, and 2] freedom.
so, we should really take pause when we hear about having our future freedoms being negotiated with without our consent, and with no authority from the people.
it displays a spoiled-ness, and taking for granted for the freedoms that you enjoy if you live in a single family home still, and eat whatever you choose to to poo-poo this without looking into it yourself…
have any of you nay-sayers ever visited a communist country?
I have, and i appreciate our traditions of freedom and individuality that we have, and i uphold our core American values, and i just think that they are under attack, and are being deliberately steered in this direction, that its just a responsibility to preserve them, and our way of life.
Our lives should be about having a good life for ourselves and our families, and not this collectivist mind-set ‘how do you justify your existence’ crap that people seem to be accepting when they sign on to ‘socialism’ as they call it, and think that not only is it harmless, that its even the answer to our problems…
no, it’s a recipe for wide-spread and needless human misery and loss of potential to serve the interests of a tiny clique of technocratic elites…
history has shown it over and over, and i keep hearing ‘no it will be different this time’; socialism is cute and cuddly now. (even though Holdren talks about active de-population schemes)
Freedom to choke on poisoned air.
Freedom to contaminate ourselves with poisoned water.
Freedom to starve to death because all of the agricultural land in the US is now too warm and dry to grow crops.
Freedom to live in a cardboard box under a bridge.
Our definitions of freedom differ. Yours seems like the freedom to not give a flying damn about anyone else but you. Which, I guess, is libertarianism for you.
Completely unobjectionable – at least, going by that thumbnail summary. If you are aware of passages in the actual document that portend totalitarianism, please cite them.
Cite that passage, please.
:dubious: That is the purest stinking bullshit you have yet posted on this forum. The difference between a totalitarian/authoritarian and a libertarian/anarchist society is a continuum, not a dichotomy; there are endless gradations. The “rule of law” is by definition incompatible with total freedom, but we can’t have much effective freedom without it.
http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/924_21239_The_Vancouver_Declaration.pdf
UN document fron Vancouver 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements:
find page 28, Agenda 10 (d) preamble LAND
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable…”
then look at the recommendations…
you are confusing freedoms with privileges; there are different degrees of privileges, not freedom. (depending on the license that the slave master is generous enough to bestow at the moment).
sorry, freedom is either/or. you are a slave, or you arent…
you are either married or you or not. there is no in between. make sense?
you either signed the contract, or you didn’t. you have liability, or you don’t.
I would be interested to hear your definition of freedom, because so far it makes no sense to me.
the rule of law can never violate someones freedoms; rather, it protects them, and makes one accountable for taking anothers, or for causing harm…
your line there is another red herring imo…
Yours first, and a clear definition of how it differs from privilege.
Exactly; said accountability is incompatible with the total freedom to do whatever you like.
:rolleyes: No, no, no.
1)That is not a passage from Agenda 21, it’s from something decades earlier, which you should not bring to this discussion without explaining the background and, more importantly, the contemporary relevance, whatever it is; the only apparent commonality with Agenda 21 is “UN.” See
[quote mining,]
(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote-mining) and pray refrain from said abominable practice henceforth.
- And the bit you quote says nothing about eliminating the single-family home – if that is somewhere in the “recommendations,” it’s up to you to find it and quote it.
au contrare.
freedom comes part and parcel with liability. liability for doing harm doesnt mean the lack of freedom to do harm.
you are free to harm someone, but you have the liability to be accountable for it in english common law anyways… (which may or may not still have any effect).
One thing that attracts people to socialism is that the state takes liability for them, and they dont have to have it for themselves, and sure they exchange rights for privileges, but whatever, what are rights anyways??
they actually don’t want freedom. they view it as a bad thing, and a right as something thats bad thats used to hurt people. freedom means being responsible for themselves, which makes them shudder. instead, they take refuge in the state, like it’s their parent, or slave master, and they are good with that arrangement…
this is how twisted this collectivist mind-set is…
It’s a UN document from a conference that led up to the Rio conference. agenda 21 grew out of these proir conferences on the exact same issues.
the 1992 document covers the same thing, the language is just more slick; they cleaned it up a bit, but its the same deal…
wake up!
its the same thing!!! United Nations= United Nations
you people are hopeless…
stockholm syndrom ITT.
like sheep to the slaughter…
theres really no debate here, because too many people are just 1] trying to prove the other guy wrong regardless
2] are just trying to keep their world view intact at all costs, including sacrificing logic, history, and civility…
this is not the circumstances of a debate, but of scape-goating (collectivist tactic)
I’m done.
Sadly, in this case, it doesn’t involve the alleged scapegoat fleeing into the wilderness…
I repeat: Where’s the bit about eliminating single-family homes?
As a lawyer, I can tell you it does. If you think otherwise, you might have been seduced into certain delusions.
Fail. You still need to provide cites to demonstrate the connection you have here simply asserted.
heres a version of the 92 agenda 21 document.
read both and compare yourself.
agenda 21 means agenda for the 21st century. the Vancouver document is about the same thing… long term planning for humanity… (with what authority??)
if you cant get the gist that private property is going to be phased out as part of an old outdated paradigm by reading these UN documents then i cant open your eyes for you. (both documents, the same orginization).
they also had a conference on Biological Diversity with the same idea that was a pre-curser to the 92 conference. again, i’m not talking about the name agenda 21.
i’m not even talking about agenda 21 itself. i’m taking about collectivism, and the end of the individual, and if you cant read through these documents, and tell from he tone of them, and the assumptions that they go on, and see the planning out of exactly a totalitarian collectivist technocratic state then i cant help.
I dont need to prove anything, because i’m not trying to prove anything; I’m just drawing your attention to something; you can consider it, or dismiss it, whatever.
I cant force someone to see the forest for the trees.
of course they arent going to come out and say ‘were eventually taking away single family homes, and private property because its not sustainable, and you will live in dense city compounds in communal high rise housing only’ …but if you cant read through this and tell that that is essentially the picture that they are painting in so many words, then you must have a block…
private property is not sustainable, and the 21st century will be sustainable by the time its over is the message loud and clear. the implications should be obvious.
It will be a move in that direction until everyone is basically renting high rise apartments from the government. period. (or is in the tiny technocratic elite because someone has to run all of this).
it may be in our grandchildrens lives that it is fully realized, but thats the plan. 80+ years from now this will be the reality if their plan comes off.
you can think ‘whatever, i wont be around’
sorry, if im in error, please do correct me… i insist. i wouldnt want to be in error…
im just going from Oliver Wendell Holmes ‘the Common Law’…
the Supreme court is a common law court to my understanding. so, are you going to tell me common law is a delusion?? lol.
or that Magna Carta is a delusion? lol
the contributions made to law made during the Tudor period never happened?
or that the english speaking people in the new world didnt adopt the british common law in the different states for the most part?
im sure its different state to state, but its now a thing of the past, and has been 100% replaced by commercial law, i would be interested? not sure, but that seems to be what your suggesting with your inappropriate and unfounded mockery…
no, i dont need to prove anything.
you can consider the info/ ideas i’m sharing, and make your own conclusions…
the thread is about the contrast of individuality to the collective, and so far, no one has come along and wanted to talk about the individual, except maybe human…
its just been mostly been obfuscation, red herrings, and arguing over what -ism is what, which is a dead end, and is meaningless.
its almost although i’m hearing apologies for collectivism, and virtually no one speaking up for the dignity of the individual, and for humanity itself…
which is pretty sad…
referring to common law doesnt make one a self-described ‘sovereign citizen’ what ever that is. it’s called having studied history…
Queen Elizabeth II is a soveriegn, not me,
duh!!!
your ad hominem attacks are too much mr. lawyer dude…
why you so intent on dis-crediting me?
touched a nerve?