getusout.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:what drives this controversy? by GeekyMike · 2005-10-23 13:41 · Score: 1 · on Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet

why don't we just say "hey, fuck you all, we're going home" and let them deal with their own messes? This political party would strive to do just that. Why do for others when we are struggling with our own issues. Let's get our own house in order.

Re:The United Nations wants to control EVERYTHING by vidarh · 2003-11-11 02:33 · Score: 1 · on Imagine A UN-Run Internet

This is the most hilarious thing I've read in a long time. I don't have time to read all of this, but here are a few comments:

If you're so worried about the earth charter, have you actually read it? (you can download it in PDF here). The only mentions of religion I could find at all were: 12 a) about eliminating discrimination, including based on religion, 12 d) Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

The Earth Charter has essentially nothing to with religion, and certainly doesn't advocate a "world religion".

As for the International Criminal Court, first of all the ICC is voluntary. Any nation can refuse to sign it, and the US did refuse. So what is the problem? But you also blatantly ignore the problem the ICC was set out to solve: How do we bring criminals to justice when a crime is committed outside the jurisdiction or reach of an effective nation government, or in a nation where the government refuse to take justice seriously. Specifically, the reason the US refused to accept the ICC was the prospect that US service men might be tried and convicted for crimes carried out abroad - which is understandable given the US military's tendency to ignore local laws for their service personell.

If the US were concerned about justice, there would be a whole lot less need for the ICC.

You're further quoting Jacques Cousteau, trying to pass off the quote as somehow official UN policy, when it is the opinion of one person. However what he is saying is in many ways true: The earth can't sustain an infinite number of people - growth needs to be stabilised. It can happen one of two ways: We take family planning seriously, and reduce the number of births, or it will "solve itself" with lower life expectancies due to hunger, disease or conflicts. How is it bad to suggest that something needs to be done to prevent future generations from massive suffering?

You also point to an out of context quote on private land ownership, ignoring that the main point is that public control of land use is vital to ensure that private land ownership isn't used to gain a choke hold on society. If you oppose public control of land use, does that mean you would be happy to allow me to buy the plots around your house and set up a drug addict rehabilitation centre, a brothel, an abortion clinic and a sewage dump on the respective sides of the house? I'd assume that you, like most of us, would find at least one of the above annoying as your next door neighbours.

The reason you can avoid that, is because land use is strictly government regulated, to ensure that someone doesn't abuse his or her "freedom" combined with wealth to shape society they way they please.

I also assume the page you wanted to point to was this which starts off with a fraudulent Marx' quote... I guess they assume noone visiting their site either have read the Communist Manifesto, or would bother searching for it on Google and checking. They then go on with another quote taken massively out of context (it's at the end of a paragraph explaining why this "property" they want to take away is the property aquired through exploitation of workers, which Marx' wanted redistributed, for starters through massively progressive property taxes, removal of inheritance rights and abolution landed property and land rents).

The page then goes on to present Habitat I as some sort of support for carrying out Marx' ideas, when what it is advocating is government control over land use as opposed to public (note: NOT government - in The abolition of landed property he specifically says on explaining nationalisation of land ownership "There will no longer exist a government nor a state distinct from society itself", something which was a key part of Marx' political foundation - a Marxist "communist" state is

The United Nations wants to control EVERYTHING by Anenga · 2003-11-10 18:34 · Score: -1, Flamebait · on Imagine A UN-Run Internet

The United Nations, or what I would like to call the Useless Nations, wants to control the Internet now, eh? Not suprising, looking at their record:

The United Nations for a WORLD RELIGION
"My hope is that this charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount,' that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century and beyond."
-Mikhail Gorbachev

The United Nations for an INTERNATIONAL COURT
The United Nations' International Criminal Court would deny Americans the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. An ICC "trial" would be decided by a panel of six or more judges, no more than one of which could be an American.

The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's BABIES
"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's BABIES
"We strongly endorse community initiatives ... to encourage the disarming of civilians...."
- Our Global Neighborhood, published in 1995 by the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance

The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's LAND
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."
- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976

And that's just the start of it. Soviet spy Alger Hiss was the brainchild of the United Nations, no doubt to overtake the U.S. as the world's superpower. Thank God that hasen't happened yet, but who knows... maybe the next Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich could make that happen.