Agenda 21

[FarmerJamie]

*long post * sorry
Hitler was the head of the National Socialist Party, the German spelling gives us "Nazi", so I'm not sure how the party in power then would hate the "socialists", they hated communists.

As I remember from High School, the continuum of economic "ism"s
totalitarianism -> communism -> socialism -> fascism -> capitalism -> no controls

So if you are a socialist, yes you can say fascists are to the right of you, but fascists are still to THE LEFT of capitalists.

From dictionary.com
socialism   
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

fascism   
[fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often

Germany and Italy still had private industry, but they worked at the direction of the central government. Yes, there are many socialist programs/ideas implemented as part of the New Deal.

I agree with Wifezilla, working with your own free will towards making a better society is admirable, being forced to is another matter. Charities and individuals quietly took care of the less fortunate before it became a "right" conferred by the federal government

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
some guy who is dead now

Your mileage my vary.

ETA: removed attribution to Alexis de Tocqueville on quote in italics

 

[Lady Henevere]

Interesting thread. I'm still not sure how Agenda 21 differs from existing governmental policy. Or maybe that's the point?

(FJ, I think you may have mis-attributed your quote.)

 

[FarmerJamie]

Interesting thread. I'm still not sure how Agenda 21 differs from existing governmental policy. Or maybe that's the point?

For me that is the point.

(FJ, I think you may have mis-attributed your quote.)

Thanks! I had always thought it was Alexis de Tocqueville. Interesting article that link refers to. It's still a good quote.

 

[Buster]

Then why does the government not own all of our businesses?

So you are okay with the government owning SOME means of production of goods and services, as long as it doesn't own all of it. Great.

I guess that means you are okay with socialized medicine.

Every institution I listed can be (and frequently is) done by the private sector, but is being done by the public sector. That makes it socialism.

Me, I'm very comfortable with that. Socialism goes way back in my family. My grandfather, an Oklahoma sharecropper, voted for Gene Debs for president twice. I've been an advocate for socialism most of my adult life, going back almost 35 years. That's why I recognize it when I see it.

And while they are also capitalists, most Americans are indeed socialists and wouldn't have it any other way, whether they know it or not.

 

[Buster]

Socialism is good.

Individuals choosing to work in a collective or socialist manner for projects on a voluntary basis is good. Institutionalized socialism is bad.

You have a point. That is how many socialists see it now days,in fact. The left has decided it doesn't trust the government any more than the right, so many prefer to develop their own cooperatives rather than trust the government.

 

[GOOGLE NIKOLA TESLA]

Socialism isnt good. It doesnt wrk, it collapses, like it is right in front of our eyes all of socialist euroPe like england, is having trouble with the bills doing all this socialism especially the school system/ paid tuitions.

Even the socialist presidents that made the social security knew it would evetually run out long after there dead and gone. Look right now, my generation will have no social security. Another socialist failure! If all people were good and hard workers maybe socialism would work, but always you got the lazy, the corruption, and one sided attitudes that make it impossible. Capitalism before all the corruption and gov regulation did allow for people to live the american dream to the fullest. That is why people use to come here from the socialist and totalitarian countrys.
Things have changed, like the biggest socialist bailout of all the corrupt and crooked companys ! You cannot say your not socialist anymore, ur taxes were used against capitlism to save selected companies while letting others fail, perfect socialist working, which is really sad if you were an american who was against this.
We got to wake up!!!!

 

[Lady Henevere]

I was having trouble seeing what's so scary about "sustainable development." There's lots of extremist hype out there about how Agenda 21 erodes our rights to be greedy, hyper-consuming Americans and all that. (That part doesn't scare me - I don't see greed as an inalienable right. Apparently most politicians disagree with me on that one, as they work for the greed of one side or the other. ) But this site has an interesting perspective that actually discusses how Agenda 21 is working out in the growth of cities:

No matter where you live, I'll bet that there have been hundreds of condos built in the center of your town recently. Over the last ten years there has been a 'planning revolution' across the US. Your commercial, industrial, and multi-residential land was rezoned to 'mixed use.' Nearly everything that got approvals for development was designed the same way: ground floor retail with two stories of residential above. Mixed use. Very hard to finance for construction, and very hard to manage since it has to have a high density of people in order to justify the retail. A lot of it is empty and most of the ground floor retail is empty too. High bankruptcy rate.

So what? Most of your towns provided funding and/or infrastructure development for these private projects. They used Redevelopment Agency funds. Your money. Specifically, your property taxes. Notice how there's very little money in your General Funds now, and most of that is going to pay Police and Fire? Your street lights are off, your parks are shaggy, your roads are pot-holed, your hospitals are closing. The money that should be used for these things is diverted into the Redevelopment Agency. It's the only agency in government that can float a bond without a vote of the people. And they did that, and now you're paying off those bonds for the next 45 years with your property taxes. Did you know that?

So, what does this have to do with Agenda 21?

Redevelopment is a tool used to further the Agenda 21 vision of remaking America's cities. With redevelopment, cities have the right to take property by eminent domain---against the will of the property owner, and give it or sell it to a private developer. By declaring an area of town 'blighted' (and in some cities over 90% of the city area has been declared blighted) the property taxes in that area can be diverted away from the General Fund. This constriction of available funds is impoverishing the cities, forcing them to offer less and less services, and reducing your standard of living. They'll be telling you that it's better, however, since they've put in nice street lights and colored paving. The money gets redirected into the Redevelopment Agency and handed out to favored developers building low income housing and mixed use. Smart Growth. Cities have had thousands of condos built in the redevelopment areas and are telling you that you are terrible for wanting your own yard, for wanting privacy, for not wanting to be dictated to by a Condo Homeowner's Association Board, for being anti-social, for not going along to get along, for not moving into a cramped apartment downtown where they can use your property taxes for paying off that huge bond debt. But it's not working, and you don't want to move in there. So they have to make you. Read on.

Human habitation, as it is referred to now, is restricted to lands within the Urban Growth Boundaries of the city. Only certain building designs are permitted. Rural property is more and more restricted in what uses can be on it. Although counties say that they support agricultural uses, eating locally produced food, farmer's markets, etc, in fact there are so many regulations restricting water and land use (there are scenic corridors, inland rural corridors, baylands corridors, area plans, specific plans, redevelopment plans, huge fees, fines) that farmers are losing their lands altogether. County roads are not being paved. The push is for people to get off of the land, become more dependent, come into the cities. To get out of the suburbs and into the cities. Out of their private homes and into condos. Out of their private cars and onto their bikes.

I still don't know that it's so scary to be honest. I'm never been a fan of the way the government chooses to spend my money. But cities used to be bustling, interesting places full of culture, shops, and friendly faces. Then there was a huge push for suburbia, "white flight," and a terrible downturn in the quality, safety, etc. of cities. "Urban sprawl" spiraled out of control, wild land and farmland were converted into subdivisions, and cities became the stronghold of gangs and the homeless. Now we have this McMansion/SUV/Wal-Mart culture, and are we really better off? Maybe redevelopment of cities isn't so awful.....?

 

[Wannabefree]

Then why does the government not own all of our businesses?

So you are okay with the government owning SOME means of production of goods and services, as long as it doesn't own all of it. Great.

I guess that means you are okay with socialized medicine.

Every institution I listed can be (and frequently is) done by the private sector, but is being done by the public sector. That makes it socialism.

Me, I'm very comfortable with that. Socialism goes way back in my family. My grandfather, an Oklahoma sharecropper, voted for Gene Debs for president twice. I've been an advocate for socialism most of my adult life, going back almost 35 years. That's why I recognize it when I see it.

And while they are also capitalists, most Americans are indeed socialists and wouldn't have it any other way, whether they know it or not.

Buster, you can stop trolling. Where did I say I was okay with any of it? Nowhere.

 

[Buster]

Well, I'm starting to repeat myself, so this will be my last post on the subject.

My point is we live in a mixed economic system. We always have, and always will. It is fine to oppose a system whose major thrust is socialism, which I think WBF is trying to say. To oppose individual programs just because they are socialist is mistaken, in my view, as our society is already rife with socialist institutions. Promote or oppose them on their merits, or lack thereof, but not because they are socialist. That is just a word talking heads and politicians use to stir folks up about something the other guy wants to do.

If you oppose ALL forms of socialism, that is fine, too. Some folks do that. Just know you are opposing everything I listed in my earlier post, because they are all examples of socialism.

And don't forget our finest example of socialism, while you are at it... the United States military.

 

[FarmerChick]

socialism of some form is in every country, every civilization.
it has to be

it does not make our country a 'socialist' country at all.

I mean truly, we all know this, and yet we keep throwing small points back and forth. why?