SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CREATING
CRISIS, SHORTAGE AND A POLICE STATE
By Michael Shaw
January 11, 2006
Achieving Abundance Ecology requires a direct relationship between man and the land, Abundance Ecologist Michael Shaw said in a presentation to the Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Association annual meeting and conference in Alpine, Texas in May 2003. Shaw speaks from experience. Shaw has received acclaim for creating an ecological oasis from a weedy 75 acre parcel on the central coast of California – what he calls “ Liberty Garden.”
“To release the potential productivity and diversity of a landscape, an owner must be free to engage in rigorous disturbance, and free to pursue a reasoned and creative process of trial and error. This process would be suited to the choice of each individual and the uniqueness of each property,” Shaw said. The attached article includes key excerpts from Shaw’s presentation to the Trans-Pecos Heritage Association.
“Sustainable Development” is the current buzz term that represents the efforts to eliminate private property in America and to control and limit human action. Sustainable Development is a synonym for “shortage ecology.” The philosophy behind the creation of shortage ecology underlies the Endangered Species Act ( ESA). The Endangered Species Act is the foundation of the land use element of Sustainable Development. [Must see video "Liberty or Sustainable Development:]
The ESA is based on international treaties and is rooted in the Precautionary Principle, which abandons the legal standard that presumes innocence. Since the ESA puts the government in control of plants and animals, the ideals of private property are destroyed, natural resource shortages arise, and natural calamities—such as devastating forest fires—increase.
George Washington was right when he said:
“Private property and freedom are inseparable.”
Private property, after all, begins with our physical person, extends to our thoughts, proceeds as our expression, becomes our action, and results in something we create or obtain. If an agent of force denies an individual the use of property, including land, that individual is also denied the liberty necessary to advance his or her own life. When the use of one’s property and one’s liberty has been squelched by big government, human life has been trampled.
Political theory probes the question, “Who decides…?” To answer this question, it is helpful to examine the philosophy underlying the treatment of property. Immediately, a contrast is seen between the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America and the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (U.N.).
Under the American system, individuals decide and direct the terms of their lives. The application of political theory that respects each individual is premised on the idea that man’s rights are unalienable, that each person is independent, and that justice must be dispensed equally. The political theory of Liberty presupposes that an individual’s rights are inherent to, or imbued within, an individual’s nature; from this, it follows that the individual has a natural right to his or her life, liberty, and property.
The political theory behind contemporary political globalism answers the question quite differently. Under the Declaration of Human Rights, the permission to have and use property is obtained by way of government grant. This is because people grant “human rights” and, as such, people can take them away.
This idea can be illustrated using the so-called “fish land” ordinance that has been adopted by central California coastal counties. Under this ordinance, much of the coastal mountain ranges are dedicated as fish land. This land, by decree of ecology planners, is to be set aside to meet the interests of fish. It extends the fish land zone from the streamline halfway to the ridge-top. The ordinance states, “Inappropriate development [within the zone] shall be decommissioned.”
The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights states: “Property shall not be arbitrarily taken.” However, since a central authority has already decided that human relocation is not “arbitrary” under the fish land set of circumstances, then no violation can be claimed. By contrast, the standards of the American Constitution strictly limit government taking of property, requiring both a public use and just compensation. In 2005 the United States Supreme Court in several key decisions dramatically undermined the American ideal of an unalienable right to the use and enjoyment of one’s property.
A system of human rights operates in concert with the pursuit of “social justice,” which can be defined as law formulated to obtain government’s social objectives often coming at the expense of individual liberty. The California fish land ordinance exemplifies the application of social justice.
The Judicial system that protects individual rights is based on the principle of freedom called “equal justice.” Equal justice supports true diversity - a respect for the independence and unalienable rights of the individual and genuine tolerance for individuality. Equal justice puts a checkmate on mob rule.
The Nature of Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development has three components: global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
The international focus for Sustainable Development is the United States. This is because America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. Private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development.
United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 21
The United Nations website verifies that the U.N. Agenda 21 action plan is Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development works to abolish private property in order to manufacture natural resource shortages and other alarms in order to facilitate governmental control over all resources and ultimately over all human action. So-called public/private partnerships are the major tool used to accomplish this objective.
What makes the United States of America unique is that this is the only country in the history of the world where management of the natural resources is under citizen control. Everything that city residents obtain originates from the natural resources that come from rural lands. If public/private partnerships achieve control over natural resources, urban citizens are doomed to manipulated crises and shortages.
Canadian oil billionaire Maurice Strong, Secretary General at the Rio de Janeiro United Nations 1992 Conference on Environment and Development, expressed the goal of Sustainable Development by declaring a partial list of what is not sustainable:
“...current life-styles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class [e.g. Americans]—involving high meat intake [e.g. cattle production], use of fossil fuels [e.g. air and auto travel], industrial and consumer products, appliances [e.g. refrigeration] home and work air-conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
Sustainable Development is Non-Partisan
The implementation of Sustainable Development is not a dynamic of Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative, or left vs. right. Rather, it is completely nonpartisan. The looming battle of ideas should be recognized as the classic—and perhaps ultimate—battle between Liberty and Tyranny.
When George H.W. Bush signed the Rio Accords at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, he opened the path for the United States to implement U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21. When Bill Clinton created the President’s Council for Sustainable Development by Executive Order in 1993, he laid the foundation for a proliferation of intermediate and local councils that would set out to alter radically the structure of government in the United States. These councils operate under many different names. Today under George W. Bush, Sustainable Development policy has swarmed every county in the country.
Funding Agenda 21
The list of money sources paying for the implementation of U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 is impressive. American taxes fund the federal agencies’ present focus: implementing Sustainable Development. Over two thousand Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are accredited by the United Nations; most exist for the purpose of implementing Sustainable Development in America. They receive massive tax advantages under the IRS code. Some of these NGOs are The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the American Planning Association, and the National Teachers Association. The third leg of the Sustainable Development money power elite are certain aristocratic tax-advantaged foundations. These include the Rockefeller Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, and numerous local Community Foundations Land Trusts.
The Wildlands Project
Sustainable Development addresses land use through two action plans. The first is the Wildlands Project. The Wildlands Project is the plan to eliminate human presence on over 50 percent of the American landscape and to heavily control human activity on most of the rest of American land. Examples of the piece-by-piece implementation of the Wildlands Project include road closings, dam-busting and water grabbing policies, and the adoption of United Nations Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites—which are systematically being closed to recreational use. The most significant tools of the Wildlands Project are the rapidly expanding impositions of habitat “protection” provisions in the Endangered Species Act, various “conservation easements,” and direct land acquisitions from battered “willing sellers.”
The second action plan is called Smart Growth. Smart Growth will increasingly herd Americans into regimented and dense urban communities. Smart Growth is Sustainable Development’s ultimate solution, as it will create dense human settlements subject to increasing controls on how residents live and increased restriction on mobility. In the words of one smart growth activist: “It will be the humans in cages with the animals looking in.”
Stakeholder Consensus Councils
Agenda 21 is being implemented through the use of facilitated stakeholder consensus councils, not by vote. These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a state Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and that implement a predetermined outcome affecting a region or a neighborhood. Members of a Soviet council are chosen by virtue of their willingness to comply with that outcome and their one-mindedness with the group. State soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy, whether it be socialism or government-business (public-private) partnerships.
Initially state soviets, public/private partnerships, seem innocuous. The police state that associates with state soviets arise when the soviet web is sufficiently in place.
To purchase single or bulk copies of this report, please visit: www.f21sc.net/store or, call 831-684-2232. Pass them out to all your city council members and County Commissioners. Wake up your local officials before its too late.
This article concludes in Part 2 with Sustainable Development’s “Three E’s of Tyranny: Equity, Economy, & Environment” and “Protecting Liberty Before it is Too Late.” Don't miss the conclusion of this report, visit www.NewsWithViews.com often. Click below for part two.
Click here for part -----> 2
© 2006 Michael Shaw - All Rights Reserved
are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Michael Shaw is a founder and director of Freedom 21 Santa Cruz and is a frequent host of the nationally syndicated Freedom 21 Santa Cruz Radio Show. He holds degrees in Political Science and Law and has practiced as an attorney and as a Certified Public Accountant. For 20 years he has implemented Abundance Ecology land management techniques on land he owns on the central coast of California. His success at creating an indigenous plant wonderland is unparalleled. Details are available at www.LibertyGarden.com.
Michael Shaw is also successfully litigating Sustainable Development policies with two California Counties (Alameda and Santa Cruz). These actions are redressing government theft of the reasonable use of private property. More information on the Nature Conservancy and Sustainable Development (research documents, subject topic articles, radio archives, neighborhood tools to counter Sustainable Development and free subscription to The Report) is available at www.f21sc.net
Web Site: www.freedom21santacruz.net/
“Sustainable Development” is the current buzz term that represents the efforts to eliminate private property in America and to control and limit human action.