The U.N. ,Democrats, and their plan for America

How very authoritarian of you.

Transition to clean renewables will (and is) happen naturally as necessity dictates. As with everything the international elites are pushing, they're pushing for unecessarily advanced progress so they can guide that progress into their monopolistic control. Progress left to natural, voluntary social progression does so in a liberal manner and undermines their monopoly.

But keep on promoting coersion to global neofeudalism as quickly as possible. The frogs are jumping out of the pot en masse, and soon they'll be too many to try to put back in.

 

How very ideological of you, with your obsolete classical liberalism that fails to take account of the limits of a finite planet.

The profit-seeking fossil fuel industry is the epitome of vested interests, and they resist the transition to green at every turn.
In fact the world economy can be transformed to run on sunshine and wind with battery/pumped hydro storage backup.

When that happens there are no more profits to be made by private energy companies, since the 'fuel' of the green economy is free sunshine and wind.

I'm promoting free electricity and clean air for the entire globe. The barrier is self-interested profit-seeking fossil fuel companies who harm the most disadvantaged most of all.

 

The planet is finite, sure. The only thing keeping us on a finite planet is the same thing that prevents electricity from being free- technological advancement. Yet Im betting if I were to coerce you into participating in my program to colonize space and gain access to the effectively unlimited resources and energy there that stand to free us all from the constraints of a finite economy, you would resist that coersion, would you not? How far out do you think is the technological advancement that will allow all of humanity access to 'free electricity'?

 

Plus vested interests who want to maintain the status quo.

Definitely not. And maximum progress toward colonization of space requires re-allocation of resources away from profit driven junk consumerism in "invisible hand" markets, toward planned public spending on public education, research and development within co-operative multilateralism. Obviously.

Some say as little as a decade, given the current reduction in prices of solar/wind and advancement in battery technology. Meantime there are thousands of sites available for pumped hydro development.

Look to vested interests in the fossil industry - and a fear of stranded assets* - as the barrier to getting on with the job ASAP.

*these can be bought by the BIS......without cost to anyone, but orthodox neoliberal monetarist economists don't want you to know it, because their salaries and schools are funded by vested interests.

 

Well you should resist said coersion. Coercive programs never turn out well, even when the stated goals appear benevolent (which they usually do).

Tho I must commend your intellectual consistency in supporting space colonization as strongly as energy independence. I wish more environmentalists would. It seems to me a lot of folks are eager to keep us dirtbound where theres more of an onus to control people. I don't think you're one of them

 

Many of them despise the founding of our nation.

 

And others can have liberty to achieve things of a different nature or whatever they desire.

 

Yes, but what's wrong with a job guarantee so no-one lives in poverty, while no-one's liberty is compromised?

How many "more social goods" do the "industrious and talented" need to be rewarded with? Unlimited?
...... while some are trapped in generational unemployment.

Hint: there are sufficient resources and productive capacity to enable liberty, reward for effort, and universal above poverty participation . I suspect you are trapped in the old neoliberal NAIRU paradigm.

 

Well if no one's liberty is compromised where are you going to get the money to pay for that "job guarantee"? What if that person getting the job guarantee just refuses to be productive? Sounds to me like you are going to confiscate $$ from someone who IS productive therefore you compromise that persons liberty!

 

Good questions.

1. Orthodox neoliberalism has convinced you that money is created by "productive individuals".

But in fact an economy's real community-enhancing wealth is produced by a surprisingly small number of individuals in essential industries; and much economic activity is in non-essential junk-consumer industries (grog, tobacco, tattoo parlors, drugs, unhealthy fast-food) which actually destroy health.

Therefore, if the resources and productive capacity are available, government can act as employer of last resort by offering a job guarantee outside of private sector employment, eg in socially desirable activity such as assisting the elderly, or in park maintenance or any community enhancing activity the local community might consider desirable.

2. Sovereign currency-issuing governments (like the US federal government) do not need to tax or borrow from the private sector in order to fund public programs. (The latter is just fallacious neoliberal monetarist ideology designed to ensure the greater part of a nation's output is able to be claimed by wealthy vested interests).

Why? Because the sovereign national government has it's own treasury and reserve bank, separate from the private sector, and can issue its own currency. The limit is the goods and services (and potential productive capacity) available for purchase in BOTH the public and private sectors, to avoid inflation.

So in fact we CAN have liberty AND fairness.....

 

You recognize, I presume, that these guidelines are ALL VOLUNTARY? There is no enforcement or penalizing mechanism, that I saw.

Since the document you linked is 41 pages long, I only skimmed a bit of it, which is about all I would think most others here might do, without having an idea of something in particular of interest to them, within it. Therefore, for your thread to say anything more than, "U.N., bad," may I suggest you actually describe some aspects of the plan that you, personally, find concerning enough to have started this thread?

To save others time, I'll end by noting that it is on page 18 of that document that the 12 general principles, that it's meant to promote, are listed. To give all a taste of them:

1. End poverty...
2. End hunger...
3. Ensure healthy lives...
4. Ensure inclusive & equitable- quality education.
5. Achieve greater gender equality...
6. Ensure availability & sustainable management of water & sanitation for all.

HORRIFYING!

 

~ Notice the U.N. has done nothing to stop the human rights atrocities in China - yet welcome their membership.

 

Promises like that always precede enslavement. Sort of like LBJ and his Great Society. It's bad enough when government does it but now your talking a global entity.

 

Why would politicians in the US allow the UN to take control from them?

 

I am so glad that I own guns. They would have to come and try to take them from me. Good luck with that.

 

I don't like Guns so I will be heading over to your house.

 

That is a really good question you should be asking the democrats.

 

Let's examine this "coercion" thing a little more closely.

We are all naturally self-interested individuals. So a well-ordered community self-evidently requires an adjudicator, aka as rule of law, to avoid anarchy.

Now, your mistake is to conflate acceptance of rule of law required to avoid anarchy, with coercion required to sanction those who would break the law.

eg, a job guarantee is not coercive, if it is legislated.....possible in a world of plenty with our modern AI and IT assisted economies, which means the old scarcity mantra of classical economics no longer holds.

Thanks.

 

You both misunderstand the the limits to jurisprudence under rule of law.

The original question from distaff being: "Why would politicians in the US allow the UN to take control from them"?

UN law is applicable to matters of international relations only.

Note: the UN is unable to "take control from US politicians" in matters concerning the internal affairs of the US.

But as to external affairs...well that depends on whether you believe in international law....

eg, many Dems themselves don't believe in international law, and hence Hillary was happy to vote for the illegal invasion of Iraq.....

 

So what would one say if they really did want to end global hunger, or poverty, or promote access for all to a clean, sustainable water supply & sanitation systems? Or is that something that no one would want?-- at least, that is, no one who could be trusted?

P.S.-- Now you've got me thinking; if promoting quality education for all, or gender equality, are sure signs of nefarious, ulterior motives-- how alarmed should we be when powerful, deep-rooted, & well-financed institutions claim that they only want to bring God's light, through knowledge of the Word, and a personal relationship w/ our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, to THE WHOLE WORLD??

Those sick, Evil BASTARDS!!!

 

~ Well then the U.N. can start with China . The Chinese Communist Party lets people starve, allows children to work 12 hours a day in unsafe conditions, practices organ transplant harvesting from unwilling prisoners , takes homes from citizens without compensation when the government wants the property , dumps plastic into the sea instead of recycling.
Let the U.N. show us by example. China first - then the world.

 

Problem is....at the top echelons are usually wolves in sheeps clothing. They seek the power and the glory for themselves. Sounds to me like you refer to "God's light", and a personal relationship W/ Jesus Christ in a type of mocking tone. Excuse me if I am wrong. Globalists like yourself, it seems to me, like to bypass the individual conversion and go straight to the power and coercion of government. They seem to feel what is right in their own eyes must be the solution for the world. So will you be the One who stands in the temple and declares peace to all the Nations? That last little ditty you invoked makes me question your temperament.

The real thing is God has the power to change the world by effecting the hearts of every single individual. Every single individual has power to influence what takes place but only in His name. So who will lead us in this Global effort you propose? Should we relent to the leadership of Communist China? Maybe Sharia law will lead the way? Oh how 'bout George Soros?. Is he the One? His humanist ideas probably appeal to you. Maybe we should start eliminating the less "enlightened" part of the human population to save the planet? Do it like China through forced abortion and sterilization? There are ones like yourself that feel they possibly know what's best for us all.

You go about your efforts. I'll seek God's will and start out in the community I share, changing hearts one by one. I stand on the promise God will change the world, not man to his own glory. Government will meet resistance by liberty loving individuals every time it espouses it's elitist attitude. Your" powerful, deep rooted & well financed institutions" may be YOUR solution......and they have shown they can "change the world" through censorship and rigged elections with a media that continuously tells lies.

I'm not buying it.

 

The best solution I think is for everyone to be taught a trade in addition to their education. Small business' and self employment should be encouraged by our government, and not hindered by regulations and taxes. Also there should be a clamp down on monopolies.

 

No, this is a disproof of your position. People in power want to maintain and increase their power. Politicians wouldn't just voluntarily give up their power. Have you ever seen leaders of the most powerful nation just voluntarily want to give it all up?