browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

American Freedom is Vanquished in the Quest for Sustainable Development

Posted by on February 2, 2012
Share via email
The United Nations is quietly stealing freedom from every American with the cooperation of the U.S. government and chances are most citizens have heard nothing about their activities.  The culprits are a global initiative called sustainable development, a subsidiary of United Nations Agenda 21.  Most elected local officials are familiar with the goals of this agenda, as they frequently implement aspects of the program in conjunction with “Local Governments for Sustainability” or ICLEI in over 1200 worldwide communities.  “Sustainable Communities” are achieved through the combined efforts of zoning, planning, and redevelopment boards, working with HUD, DOT, and the EPA.  Our federal government combines the agency efforts through “Smart Growth” initiatives.  The concept centers on high-density mixed-use redevelopment areas in American cities.  The appeal to municipalities is the block grant money that accompanies most sustainable efforts from the specific agencies involved. This is a long-range plan to return suburban and rural populations to our cities, by restricting suburbs and rural development while concentrating all resources toward a bounded zone that would contain both residential and commerce in a predominantly service-based economy.  A rapidly growing number of municipalities in the U.S. have signed on to the “Sustainable community/smart growth” agenda.  Speak with any advocate for Smart Growth and they will argue that citizens living in suburban or rural areas is an unsustainable strain on America’s infrastructure and more importantly, they hasten to add, the environment.  They argue that water, sewer, electric and other conveniences of modern life are a drain on public funds and must be restrained or contracted–bringing people into a close proximity for more efficient use of tax dollars and less use of finite natural resources. Decisions about where to live or work and how to travel are better managed, according to the Smart Growth movement, by planners using a sustainable development template.  Therefore, Both the UN and the many leaders in the U.S. government surmise that their management of most lifestyle decisions will necessarily override individual decisions.  The objective of Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.  Note the 3E’s – economic, environmental, equity in the context of this statement leaves no question regarding the intent.  Examine the specific policies promoted under the Sustainable Communities/Development umbrella and come to your own conclusions. Much has been written about urban growth boundaries, as they gain popularity across the country.  Property outside the zone has extremely restricted development, while real estate inside the boundary sees increased demand and prices.  In rural America, the EPA is usurping land use rights, creating buffer zones, effectively taking prime farmland abutting waterways out of production.  In Washington, 61% of farmland would be taken out of production, even though a 6 year study showed no residue in the targeted study area going back into the waterways.  Buffer zones are becoming common in Michigan, Texas and other states.  The EPA is making arbitrary decisions that will financially decimate farming, even though proof is abundant that agricultural property in private hands will receive better overall stewardship than federal or state owned lands.  Rural private land ownership for residential or commercial purposes is not desired by sustainability advocates.  In their view, all land is meant to be administered for the public good, not held by the individual.  Public policy, via unelected regulatory bodies, is now tailored to wrest control of land from the individual which flies in the face of America’s founding principles.  In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison specifically addressed the need for a national government to protect the naturally unequal distribution of property, whether it be land, business or other “moneyed interest.”  Madison realized that men would naturally acquire property in relation to their individual abilities and this would be the most frequent basis for conflict.  It’s also no coincidence that Federalist 10 makes the argument in favor of a Republic form of government over a pure Democracy, noting the populist habit of abusing government power to confiscate the property of (quoting our President), “the most fortunate among us.” Liberty is being trampled, not only by populist greed or by the legislature, but by unaccountable agencies of the federal government–the directors appointed by the President.  Locally, grassroots activists who wish to protect freedom, mobility and sovereignty must become involved with their local zoning and planning departments–serving on local zoning boards where possible.  These boards are magnets for the those who embrace restrictions on private property rights. It is dawning on the majority of Americans that government will never stop grasping at increased control over all aspects of human behavior and interaction.  The administrative statists see the finish line and only a tattered Constitution stands in their way. 
Share via email

Leave a Reply