Environmentalism: A globalist tool for tyranny

By Steve Farrell
web posted September 11, 2000

There are plenty of good reasons for a freedom loving people to steer clear of the United Nations, one of the chief ones being the fanatical zeal with which the UN and Friends grasp hold of every worry and woe, make it their own, blow it out of proportion, and insist that they and only they can provide a solution, a solution which must be imposed by force upon the world. The U.N.'s betrothal to the radical mankind-hating environmental movement is one of their most revolting exhibitions of this truth.

In making such a claim, it must first be admitted that environmentalism could be a good thing. No reasonable person wants to live in a filthy, unattractive, unhealthy environment. Keeping the world clean should be one of our top priorities. Yet an old saying and a good one reminds us "let every man sweep clean his own front yard, and the world will be a clean and beautiful place."

Cleaning and beautifying is an individual responsibility, one which most of us attempt to fulfill in our own way. It is not the job of governments to force us to do this, or to prescribe in any particular how this is to be done, but only to punish us when our activities encroach upon the life, liberty, and property of others. Nothing more is necessary or legitimate.

Most every home, even in the big city I live in, is kept clean and attractive without a government mandate to do so. Even in the poorest neighborhoods, one can find a fair percentage of homes with neatly trimmed grass, colorful floral arrangements, and attractive shrubberies and trees. It's not hard to figure out why. People are born with an innate desire to make constant improvements upon themselves and upon their property. And if that doesn't inspire them, then keeping up with the Joneses will.

One way or another, people have kept their surroundings relatively clean and orderly in their own unique way since the beginning of time. Never has government needed to tell man to beautify and take care of his property. Man has done just fine, thank you, because private property works.

On the other hand, collective ownership is a mess. Visit a housing project if you don't believe it, or come to grips with the atrocious environmental degradation which went on behind the iron curtain where the government, not individuals, owned every industry.

Of course, there are exceptions. Some private property owners do pollute, scar, and hurt people on and off their property, either through archaic technologies, error, oversight, negligence, or malicious intent. But those exceptions, in America anyway, used to be handled by a simple non-intrusive formula. When someone's misuse of private property caused harm to others the victims did not go to an arbitrary-law-centered environmental protection agency of salaried employees, but they did go to a court of their peers.

There was a reason for that. Woodrow Wilson explained:

"There is no liberty unless a man's privileges be determined by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land. So soon as I have to go to Washington [or to a more distant and unattached UN] to ask how I may conduct my business I have ceased to live under an American polity. There is no longer any difference between the polity which we established to escape and the polity which we ourselves, childishly, have returned to.

"Government regulation? Yes, but through the ancient, the stable, the incorruptible instrumentality of the law, not through the choice of executive officials. . . .

"Wrong practices must be stopped, but they must be stopped in such a way that we shall not substitute the wrong of tyranny for the wrong of private oppression. I can resist my neighbor but I can not resist the government; and when the government is made strong against me and interferes in everything I attempt to do, then my life is the life of a man enslaved and not of a man standing upon the ancient principles of a free race."

Thus, Wilson rejected government regulation - which he identified as an irreversible step toward socialism - and wisely encouraged a voluntary "[recovery] of the ancient principles of morality, [and] the ancient principles of public spirit, "that thereby America might give greater strength to the established cure of a court of peers."

This certainly is the only safe cure for whatever legitimate environmental concerns there are, whether on the local, national, or international levels. But the U.N. has something else in mind, and that something else has nothing to do with protecting the environment, but everything to do with increasing the pull for world government.

Please send e-mail your comments and/or media requests to Steve at Cyours76@yahoo.com

Other related stories: (open in a new window)

Current Issue

Archive Main | 2000

E-mail ESR



1996-2020, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.