It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by mastahunta
Well first off, businesses have every right to own land as any person does. Sure there are different laws for them and yes, most businesses adhere to environmental laws.
Second, Businesses here in the US cannot produce its own energy because the far left environmentalists want to control our environment.
Then they tax our energy to death and tell us we shouldn't be fighting wars in the Middle East for oil.
You know what? You can't have it both ways. Either let us drill for oil here, or let us have wars that kill millions of people. I'd choose the oil here!
Yeah, that's right I said it. Drill Baby Drill. I don't see why that's such a bad evil phrase now.
Originally posted by mastahunta
No, that is hardly the whole of my argument, it is just a tiny portion of what I observe. But we can
examine industries from oil, nuclear, chemical to paper processing and see that containing costs and waste
are very costly to the bottom line and not good for profit.
OK, lets talk about the generation of nuclear energy... Tell me, who pays for the disease caused by the radiological discharge? Explain how the process of generating nuclear energy has changed. Or how the
lack of change has impeded the capital investment in the industry. The radiological event in Japan has
done nothing to dent futures in the industry.
The act of Mining, Drilling, radiological/chemical synthesis is separate from a
companies mission statement, one is a concept, while the other is a process that has naturally
occurring bi products that have nothing to do with management or policy. Can you provide
several examples where cleaning up and properly containing toxic waste is a net profit line
I'm afraid it sounds like you have reverted to siding with private practices, evoking the same bias I was
referring to with my initial remarks. We have come full circle; unless you are saying that oil/nuclear
and petrochemical industries have a great track record of responsibly self regulating their toxic bi product
I am not sure what force will slow pollution, when that pollution is extremely expensive to counteract.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
...Read the article and "Recommendations"
The UN and property rights
To the framers of the U.S. Constitution, property was as sacred as life and liberty. The inalienable right to own -- and control the use of -- private property is perhaps the single most important principle responsible for the growth and prosperity of America. It is a right that is being systematically eroded.
Private ownership of land is not compatible with socialism, communism, or with global governance as described by the United Nations. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao - all took steps to forcefully nationalize the land as an essential first step toward controlling their citizens. The UN, without the use of military force, is attempting to achieve the same result.
The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN's official policy on land. The Preamble says:
"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...."
The Preamble is followed by nine pages of specific policy recommendations endorsed by the participating nations, including the United states. Here are some of those recommendations:
You know, I'm getting really sick and tired of these threads that implicate "the left" in all kinds of ridiculous stories.
Surely this is a freedom that should supersede the freedom of private developers to build on that woodland?
Humans are not weeds or animals. We're different due to the conciousness we have. We are more aware of the consequences of our actions etc.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Say I live near a nice wooded area that many enjoy to walk in and take in the beauty of the environment. Surely this is a freedom that should supersede the freedom of private developers to build on that woodland?
I mean you are free to swing your arms around, but as soon as they connect to my face you should lose that freedom.
All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. It matters not if you are human, some other form of mammal or animal, vegetation, insect, virus or bacteria, if it is law it applies to all. Unalienable rights fall within law and all creatures great and small have the right to life, liberty, and property.
Just because there are humans, such as yourself, who place their whimsical and arbitrary belief system above law, this does not vindicate you, it exposes you.
You just presupposed the existence of this "law". I'm sure the protozoa appreciate their "unalienable rights" to private property.
This whole classical liberal idea of unalienable rights was derived from Natural Law Theory, which in turn had it basis in religion, to specific, Christianity. It's a silly anthropocentric concept which puts humans at the top of a hierarchy in nature.
Look at the religious connotations in the language used - "true, universal, and absolute".
Originally posted by Kafternin
The recent earthquake in Ohio was tied to fracking, a very WELL KNOWN problem because it is done on private property and then pollutes surrounding property, was done on private property.
Who is being successfully sued for the repercussions of fracking?
I know it is climate change but thanks to fracking on private land, our water catches on fire up here.edit on 8-1-2012 by Kafternin because: (no reason given)
No I didn't, it is self evident, and you are just reifying. It is also interesting that you chose a parasitic entity to speak to the right to private property. While it is fairly presumed that there are no protozoa versed in Smithonian or Marxist ideology, the protozoa act much more Marxist than they do Smithonian. The protozoa, however, do have a right to life, liberty, and property just as any living entity does.
Trees do not require a Congress of trees in order to derive the right to spread their roots where they stand. Bushes do not require a decree from a king in order to derive their right to spread their roots where they stand, and the humming bird does not need permission from the state in order to build a nest on any tree. The longer trees are left to their own devices the much harder it becomes to uproot them because those trees have done what is necessary to defend their property. Bushes have their own methods of defense, and the humming bird, much like the eagle will defend their nests. This is self evidently so, not anything I presupposed.
Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics all spoke to natural law, none of them being "Christian". Cicero also spoke to natural law and he was not "Christian" either. Your profoundly gross misrepresentation of natural law (lex naturalis) is quite simply any system of law determined by nature, which quite obviously includes gravity, bodies in motion, and the speed of light, or perhaps you think those laws are Christian beliefs too. The anthropocentricism is yours alone and of course, "positive law" which is the stark contrast to natural law is undeniably anthropocentric.
How exactly is it self-evident? Well, many but not all protozoa are parasitic. Smithonian? Perhaps you mean Smithian? Liberty is a vague human concept – how can that be applied to protozoa? Also, how exactly do protozoa utilize land and capital (since they have a right to property)?
Originally posted by AllInMyHead
reply to post by Hawking
I hope you were being sarcastic. I am no fan of the democratic party anymore but your statement is a little over the top if you were being serious. Really? Thank God for Fox News and Glenn Beck? Really?
You keep using the words “their right”. Trees and bushes grow, spread their roots. Yes, but why use such language of “Rights” to describe this?
I noted this fact because the OP argues from a conservative viewpoint – the Declaration of Independence does state that “unalienable Rights” are granted by the “Creator”.