Yet More Green Fascism

It's rather fitting that in accordance with the Libertarianz' latest video, 'Ban It', that the Greens are pushing for ever more activities to be banned; the latest one is a ban on foreigners from buying property.

Greens co-leader Russel (with one 'l') Norman asks, "why should we allow Singaporean, Australian or American speculators to buy investment properties in our country, shutting first-time home buyers from the market?"

Why? Because their investment in New Zealand:

A) creates jobs in the local building industry, and in turns creates jobs in other areas such as forestry, mining etc, with the added competition driving up wage rates -meaning that buying homes becomes easier for people in those industries. And wouldn't it be more environmentally sustainable to use the resources in house construction here in New Zealand than shipping them overseas?

B) helps to make New Zealand a cleaner country. Wealthy foreigners buy into New Zealand based on its "clean, green" image, and unspoiled rural environment. Property rights give an incentive to keep it that way. If foreigners weren't allowed to buy property in New Zealand the demand for pristine areas would fall, and areas otherwise owned by foreigners would either not be owned at all, or by some not-so-wealthy New Zealander who probably wouldn't have the time or money to keep his property sparkling clean (and who wouldn't be as appreciative of the land as well). Either way, the incentive to keep land in a pristine condition grows smaller.

C) makes New Zealand more well known on the world stage. Without millions of taxpayer dollars going to some rich advertising agency to market the country as a tourist destination overseas, New Zealand will become known as a good holiday destination, with scenery not found anywhere else. This gives a boost to the tourist industry, which in turns provides more jobs for NZ citizens.

There you go, Norman. Three good reasons why, like all bans on voluntary human activity, a ban on foreigners buying property in New Zealand is not a good idea.

Not that the Greens understand the idea of "voluntary human activity".

Food Crisis: Some Suggestions

There has been much hoo-haa recently around the world, especially in poorer countries, over the large rises in food prices recently.

But New Zealand, as a country, stands to gain A LOT. We have excellent farming land, advanced technology, and animals by the truckload. New Zealand could potentially make a huge deal of money out of this.

To ensure New Zealand's eventually triumph in the upcoming years in food production, here are some suggestions:

1) Remove "green" regulations to the production of food. Remove GM hysteria over food production. Invest in new technologies and capital for the most efficient food production in the world. Allow for more intensive farming. Issues such as water pollution caused by animal excrement and chemicals on the farm can be sorted out by privatizing basic bodies of water, such as rivers and sections of lakes. (This has worked very well in Scotland.)

2) Deregulate the market on a world scale. New Zealand has done very well by promoting its food products around the world, facilitated by free trade. This doesn't concern NZ, at least as much as the EU, which prevents the crucial development of African farmers from getting them to produce their food in the long term, independently. The same applies to the United States (and Canada?).

3) Slash other regulations to production. Slash limits on how much food can be produced at what price, what amount, etc. Important issues such as quality can be sorted out primarily by the market and organizations such as consumer watchdogs, with government interference only after an act of force or fraud has been committed.

There you go, some suggestions for the upcoming food crisis. Let's see whether basic principles of market economics are followed, and if not, how well the situation turns out otherwise.

Kiwi Apartheid

Few people seem to realize how racist a place New Zealand really is. To go over a few laws and legislation:

-First off, the Treaty of Waitangi. The single document responsible for the PCization of NZ politics and culture, and the primary reason why Kiwi law is so racist.
-Two electoral roles. What really is the point in having two electoral roles, other than the division of the voting population.
-Maori land rights taking precedence over everyone else's. Maori people are no more or no less people than anyone else. Howcome their right to property-which is directly related to their right of life-is more important than anyone else's?
-Thanks to Political Correctness, Maori people also have more government devoted to them than the rest of the population. For instance, would Land Transport NZ pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to divert a whole road away from a mystical animal's hiding place if the white population said it was important to them?
-The fact that when a Maori person, or a minority person in general, does something bad like murder or rape, it's everyone's fault. Of course, this is never true amongst the white population.

Many Maori people are part of a large NZ "underclass" of people who beat their wives, get drunk regularly, and let their children join gangs and get themselves hurt or even true. Colonialization back 100 years ago was hardly the best policy of the European superpowers, and did treat indigenous peoples as second-class citizens. But that was 100 years ago. Maori people can go out and success in life just as anyone else can. But many don't, and statistics for Maori people are quite shocking. The reason for this is that many Maori fall victim to the belief that they're part of a victimized culture that needs eternal reparation. But Maori, just like everyone else in New Zealand, are responsible for their own actions and wellbeing, not people who lived 150 years ago.

Colonialism=bad. Tribalism=worse.

NZ Government Votes AGAINST Tribalism at the UN

The NZ Government, with all due surprise, was one of four nations (US, Canada, Australia, NZ) that voted against a UN resolution to increase the power of tribalism around the world granting indigenous peoples the first rights to resources and land that were previously utilized by them.

Similarly, Maori Tribalists such as Pita Sharples are "disgusted and ashamed" by the NZ vote against. The "treaty" was designated to "protect the world's 370 million indigenous people, saying they have the right to lands, territories and resources they have traditionally owned or used" (from TVNZ).

Wrong. It is primarily the rights of the people who own the land, own the resources and own the "territories" that have first rights to what they own.

The whole "white guilt" concept is simply working to keep us years behind when it comes to race relations. Although it's true that imperialism was hardly the best foreign policy and indigenous people were treated as second-class citizens for long periods of time, isn't it time to finally move away from those events and treat everyone as equal under the law? Unfortunately, that ideal, which was what the civil rights movement was primarily based around, has backfired. People are being made to feel ashamed of a past that was not theirs. Martin Luther King Jr. said that "I have a dream, that one day, the sons of former slaves, and the sons of former slave owners will some day sit down at the table of brotherhood". Not "I have a dream, that one day, the sons of former slaves will sit down at the table of brotherhood, and whites will be too embarrassed of what they can't control to sit down with them".

This whole "white guilt" concept, plus the myriad of legislation that exists around the concept, is helping to keep humanity in the middle ages when it comes to what they can't even control- their skin colour.

Also, Helen Clark said something half-decent to the rational ear! At least, the second part:

"The Prime Minister has defended the decision not to sign, saying the Treaty of Waitangi and common law already does the job."

Full news story: TVNZ

Rotorua to Banning Spitting and Swearing in Public

The City Council of Rotorua is deluded. I agree that spitting on the ground and swearing in public are stupid, but do the utopian citizens of Rotorua really believe that their ban will work? After all, Rotorua is hardly the most upscale town. This law will only serve to increase the amount of profanity and saliva on Rotorua's streets.

The proper solution to these undesirables: property rights.

Common Fallacies about Capitalism

It's not often we meet Socialists who can debate about economics in a rational way and without referring to the Utopia that they want. But for all you who need a bit of a primer for debating with them, I've made a list of common arguments you may hear from the Socialists about Capitalism (and Globalization) and how to combat those arguments in an effective way, which will leave them with something to think about. These are the top ten arguments (and what to do about them) you'll hear:

10) Capitalism encourages Racism.
This is a very common misconception. Capitalism favours people on their productivity. This is true throughout the entire market. In a Capitalist economy, it doesn't matter who owns the house-be it a Communist, Nationalist, Mexican, Asian, Gay, Lesbian-but what condition the house is in. Similarly, a business hires people on the basis of their productivity. Racism becomes a waste of money in a Capitalist society. Productivity, not race, sexual orientation, political beliefs or gender matters in the Free Market.

9) The Market fails to provide essential services like Healthcare and Education. It also fails to provide welfare for poorer citizens.
Many people wonder why the healthcare and education services in almost every country in the world range from bad to abysmal. Here in New Zealand, the government reports surplusses of up to $7,000,000,000 yet much of our school system is underfunded and the healthcare system is in a huge mess. It is true that private schools and hospitals are expensive. But that's because there is no-or at least a small amount of- competition, so the owners can keep their prices high. But in the competitive free market, schools will be suject to the law of supply and demand, so consumers can and will choose the best school for their children to attend. Schools will have to lower their costs whilst raising their quality to attract customers. To keep quality high, schools will employ only the best teachers, and keep them happy-and productive-with generous wages and benefits. As with all workers, there will a market for teachers, a lot greater than today's market.

Socialists point to the American healthcare system as proof that a free market in healthcare doesn't work. The problem is that America's system isn't a free market. It is a third-party system (aka, employers more often than not have to provide discounted insurance) and is strangled with regulations. Americans are infamous for litigation, which further raises prices. The healthcare system in America is far from being a free market.

As for welfare, in a free market welfare is supplied vountarily by private charities. These are a far better alternative to government-provided welfare because these charities have genuine compassion for the people they're helping. And as I'll discuss, Capitalism increases wealth for all people by increasing production.

8) In a Free Market, the poor keep getting poorer, as machines introduced will keep lower-paid workers out of jobs.

As machines keep getting more advanced, workers don't get out of work, but instead work in different sectors of the economy-this is a natural process in the transition from an agrarian to industrial and then from an industrial to a service-sector economy. The transition is beneficial to workers in the fact that most service-sector jobs are a lot cleaner than industrial-sector jobs. It also means that instead of working manually to produce, we can instead make ultra efficient changes in the way we produce-for instance, by inventing machines that do jobs faster than humans, that can be hugely beneficial to a society. The machines mean that workers can instead do other, less dangerous tasks while production still stays at a high level. Notice how unemployment rates in the Western world aren't too different than what they were, say, 100 years ago.

7) In a Capitalist society, businesses will just employ who works for the lowest pay. The Market will also keep wages as low as possible.
In a free market, businesses will not employ who works for the least money, but instead they'll employ who they feel is the best value for money. This is the reason why IT businesses are outsourcing not to sub-Saharan Africa, but to India, where the IT workers are the best value for money. Workers are an investment. Companies will always seek out the workers who provide the most "bang for your buck"-so if that means paying them $100,000 a year, the business will likely do so. This is also why, in a free market, wages and productivity ultimately go hand-in-hand. Any outside attempt to artificially raise wages will end up raising the unemployment level, as they cut out the less productive workers.

An often ignored fact about treatment of workers under Capitalism is that Capitalism provides competition in the labour market. In the high-growth economy that Capitalism creates (because the incentive to start a business is so much greater), workers have a variety of options they can work for. Companies have to compete for these workers, and as thus need to make the incentive to work for them all the more greater. No one is forced to work for anyone, so workers need to agree to work for a company, in order for that company to employ them.

In the ideal Capitalist society, the employer and the worker would decide together what conditions the worker would work under, his pay, his benefits, etc. This automatically gives the worker an upper hand when deciding what he wants out of a job.

6) The market is responsible for the creation of monopolies.
In a Free Market, there is only one way to become a large company and/or monopoly: to offer products superior to that of the competition. If the monopoly continues to offer better products as it did when competition was around, no harm is done. But if a monopoly raises it's prices and/or lowers the quality of it's products, the monopoly has just left the door wide open to competitors to offer better products. Competitors, attracted by the potential for greater profits, will then enter the market with better products, and consumers will start buying from the new business. The monopoly will either better the quality of its products to stay a monopoly, or try and buy every new market entrant out-not an easy task considering the profits that can be made by offering products better than those of the monopoly.

As for markets being the reason corporations are "big and scary" to many Leftists, that's hardly an effect of the market, but instead of government intervention into the market-which will be discussed later.

5) Market Forces are the reason behind many of today's Wars.
The Free Market is not responsible for today's wars-governments are. The Market is based on a policy of non-coercion. Instead, the Market will seek out the most peaceful road to prosperity, as no one likes to be caught in the crossfire of war. Pursuing a policy of free trade with other nations is how the market handles foreign economic issues. The Free Market, not war, brings prosperity and freedom to nations. After all, how many wars are there today between nations that have a policy of free trade towards one another?

4) Capitalism causes Inequality, between person and person, country and country. Because of this, Capitalism also causes Isolationism in societies.
Although it is true that under Capitalism you have ultra-rich people like Bill Gates and John D Rockefeller, Capitalism doesn't create nearly as bad inequalities as it may seem. The good majority of people in the Capitalistic societies of today are Middle Class. When arguing about inequality, many Socialists point out to the percentage of Americans currently living below the poverty line (12%) as proof that Capitalism makes the world a more unequal place. In reality, only 1/3 of the people below the poverty line in the States stay there for more than two years. 2/3 are in "temporary poverty", meaning that they stay in poverty for less than two years. In fact, the median time below the poverty line in America for people in "temporary poverty" is only four months.

Contrary to Socialist rhetoric, the ultra-rich contribute to making the world a more equal place. For instance, if Steve Jobs of Apple Computers invests $1,000,000 towards expanding his company in India by employing 1,000 more people, he has just put those 1,000 people on more equal terms with the rest of the world, by providing them with an income they can use to raise their standard of living.

Capitalism does not cause isolationism, as man is free to do whatever he wishes to and with other people-providing he doesn't commit an act of force or fraud. A man can gain huge values living with his peers, such as knowledge, trade and mediation. Capitalism doesn't force people to be isolated. In a Capitalist society, living alone from other people only works to man's detriment.

3) As businesses in a Capitalist society only care about profits, they'll willingly destroy the environment if it means more profits.
This argument ignores the basic institution of a free market, that being property rights. Property rights give people incentives to protect their property from pollution, as it'd be in the owner's best interests to keep their property in tip-top condition when selling time comes around. It also makes you seem respectable to other people, which is many cases is incentive enough to look after your property. In a Capitalist society, older, more polluting technology is less productive and more prone to faults than newer, cleaner technology, meaning that, over the course of industrialization, many countries will actually become cleaner than what they were before, as man can become more independent of the environment. For instance, (Capitalistic) America is regrowing it's forests. To most Socialists, this should be unthinkable considering the American impact on the environment. But it's happening, because businesses don't need to rely on forests for resources as much as they did 50-100 years ago anymore.

Under Capitalism, Property Rights coupled with continuing development ensure the cleanliness of the environment. We have now seen from history the huge impact on the environment when Property Rights have been removed. The USSR was going through an environmental crisis just before it decipitated.

2) In a Free Market, Government always favours big Business more than the "little guy". Government essentially "gets into bed" with big Business.
Corporate Welfare is not a thing of the Free Market. Instead, it is an error of the government. The Free Market doesn't give any exemptions to big businesses from the law as under a Free Market, the same laws are applied to everyone. Capitalism states that no one can commit an act of coercion against another, and that applies to big business just as much as everyone else. As, under Capitalism, economy and state are separated, corporate welfare and governments favouring corporations are a sign of government intervention in the economy, not an effect of the Free Market.

1) Capitalism is based on Greed. It is just about profits, profits, profits. Even if everyone but a small elite get left behind, that won't matter in the mind of the Greedy Capitalist.
One thing is correct here; Capitalism is indeed built on self-interest. But here's where it differs from all the other socio-economic systems in history: Capitalism bans all acts of force and fraud against other people. You can not, therefore, go out and steal your car from someone else. In a Capitalist society, you have to produce to get ahead of everyone else and pursue your self-interest. Voluntary trade is also an option, but ultimately won't get you ahead as in a society with a standard of value, aka money (bartering is useless because material values change from person to person, and makes economic calculation impossible), your overall net worth can't increase by merely trading-unless you rip your trading partner off by selling above the market rate. Production is the only way to increase wealth.

So, in order to increase wealth, the Capitalist must produce. The problem is that while his mind can lead to production on a massive scale, his own two hands can't accomplish much. He must employ other people to work for him, and as we already know people must agree to work for him, in order to work for him. Once this is done, production is greatly increased. But still, this is relatively minor compared to machines, which I've already gone over. The production brought about by the "greedy" Capitalist leads to tremendous creation of wealth-which disperses itself, as people voluntarily buy his products-the fruits of his labour. Money will then go into production, and then voluntarily disperse itself again in the form of products.

So yes, Capitalism is built on greed. But Capitalism uses greed to hugely increase the quality of life anywhere in the world wherever, whenever it has been tried.

User-pays fees for roads a good idea

Liberty Scott has an interesting article about sprawl, roads and how roads should be funded. I fully agree that user-pay fees for roads are an excellent idea, as people would pay for how many kilometres they drive and adjust their car usage and where they live to reduce the cost. This would attract more people to the inner cities making those city centers lively. Because of this, the house price of homes in the 'burbs would go down, making homes in the suburbs more affordable for the lower and middle-classes, without continually adding rings of sprawl around the city.

He also notes that, with a user-pays road system, public transport would become more competitive, which would be excellent for the several thousand commuters who use public transport in New Zealand's cities daily. Petrol taxes could become very low or be abolished entirely.

So while it is the lefties who run our cities who engage in a "war against sprawl" and by doing so make our cities horrendously unaffordable, it is also those same lefties who subsidise living in the sprawl. And in our horrendously unaffordable cities, that is, unsurprisingly, the most attractive option for the middle and lower classes.

Once again, this is another problem-at least to the majority who actually care about it, that the free market can easily solve.

Google threatens CYFSwatch

That's right; Google is threatening to shut down CYFSwatch if they keep making posts about Social Workers and CYF. It was reported that Google deleted a threatening message to a social worker because the post "breached the terms and conditions". The message was reposted again only a few hours afterwards. Fellow blogger David Farrar says:

"The behaviour has endangered the entire blog. If the person wanted to repost the message they should at least have deleted the identifying details of who it was about".

The post has been deleted again, but CYFSwatch still lists many social workers in it's "hall of shame". The Ministry of Societal Deprivation has made calls for the blog to be deleted.
______________________________________________________________________

I should post a reminder for the Google censors: Google doesn't own the internet, and CYFSwatch is the property of it's creator, just as this blog is the property of me. Google has no right to delete a post, let alone delete the site if it decides to do so. As a search engine and major source of information on the internet, Google should be a champion of Free Speech, not the other way around.

The Ministry for Societal Deprivation should butt out of our affairs, and not tamper with our rights to free speech. Besides, the ministry is useless. When politicians learn some common sense may they see that.

Article link here.

Whangamata Marina to finally be built

Congratulations to the people of Whangamata, who's marina is finally getting the go-ahead. After 14 years (sounds familiar?) of Wrestling with Resource Consent, getting the O-K for the marina's environmental impact and having the marina that they fought so hard for disallowed by Only-I-decide-what-goes-on-around-here MP Chris Carter, the people of Whangamata have reason to celebrate. From Stuff.co.nz:

"It has taken more than 14 years and a huge investment in time and resources to reach this point but it has been worth the effort as I am confident that the marina will prove a real asset to Whangamata."

Mr Kelly said it was hoped construction would begin in July next year.

The society went to court after Mr Carter stopped the project, and in September the High Court ruled he had failed to follow proper processes when he vetoed resource consents for the marina.

A toast to the men and women of the Whangamata Marina Society.

NO to billboard ban!

Article here

As most readers here would know, the ACC is planning to ban all billboards from Central Auckland. From the article:

"The idea was to remove giant pictures such as All Black Dan Carter in underwear so people could appreciate buildings, heritage and natural landscape instead.

It was argued that the ban would make Auckland an 'international city'."

As we can see, not only are the reasons for the ban nonsense, the ban is immoral and makes no allowance for property rights.

It is the owner's right to put up billboards, not the council's. What would the incentive be to put up a billboard over a historic building, for instance, be anyway? Even if a billboard was put up over a historic building, the public would not be pleased (we have seen that countless times before) and, as it is historic, lower the property value.

On the over hand, billboards can make for excellent high-tech public squares. Just look at New York's Time's Square or London's Picadilly Circus. Where would they be if they didn't have their billboards to give them a modern-day feel? They'd be very average squares, I can tell you that.

So why should Auckland's CBD be prevented from having that? Why should it be prevented from having a modern feel to it. Billboards could do wonders for, say, Aotea Square.

Anyway, you can email your disgust and hatred to Auckland councillors here:

mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.hucker@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.abel@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.armstrong@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.boyle@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.casey@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.caughey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.christian@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.fryer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.hinchcliff@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.leighton@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.millar@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.milne@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.mulholland@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.northey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.raffills@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.sefuiva@aucklandcity.govt.nz,cr.simpson@aucklandcity.govt.nz
cr.storer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.walsh@aucklandcity.govt.nz

The disastrous long-term effects of "sustainability"

Throughout the past few decades, we have seen an environmental movement build up such a hatred of mankind that can easily be coupled with Al-Qaeda (just look at the environmentalist quotes I posted on my previous post on the subject). Although on the surface this movement actually looks rather sane and no major threat to man. But, even the "sane" environmentalists propose something which will be disatrous to mankind: sustainability.

For starters, lets look at the RMA. The RMA, as has been put by the Libertarianz, has "nationalized all land but in name". Apart from the effects on property rights the RMA has had which are disatrous in themselves, today I am looking at the technological and business side of the RMA and similar "sustainable" legislation.

The RMA, as described on Wikipedia, is this:

"The RMA requires the application for a resource consent for any activities that relate to resource use. As part of a resource consent an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), a report on the Environmental Impact Assessment is required".

Basically, if you want you do so much as build a doghouse on your property, you need to waste time-and money-waiting for the government to decide if it's alright.

However, a dog house is only a simple building, and will have no environmental impact whatsoever. Lets make the project larger. Lets make it a new hotel, like the Hilton planned for Wellington.

A hotel will be a boost to Wellington's tourism industry as it will provide more accommodation for more tourists. As it is a boost for Wellington's tourist industry, it will be a boost for the government, and local attractions, as more visitors can flock here. All around, it will be beneficial for Wellington, even if some people don't like the look of it (which could be changed otherwise).

However, the Hilton hotel took 14 years to get resource consent. 14 years. The leading advocate of the project died before those 14 years were up.

Waiting 14 years to get resorce censent for a new, low-rise hotel is a disgrace. After that, there are the years needed to build it, which could be at least two or three.

As many will agree, New Zealand's infrastructure is ageing. We are behind many other OECD nations in upgrading our infrastructure, and the resource management act is only going to magnify the problem.

25 or so years from now, we can presume from current trends that New Zealand is going to continue passing new "sustainable" legislation. When we actually have to upgrade important infrastructure, like dams, and have the money, it may be too late. The RMA would have already caused many blackouts, like the ones witnessed in the South Island. We are experiencing those blackouts today.

Why? Because the RMA is preventing us from building new dams, or at least upgrading current ones, to make NZ's infrastructure better. Although there are other factors, the RMA is the biggest culprit. Taking less than half 14 years to wait for a dam to be built is a disgrace, and a big problem.

The solution is, not just in New Zealand but increasingly around the world, to roll-back "sustainable" legislation and start building new infrastructure to last at least two generations.

It is natural for human populations to grow. If we don't provide the infrastructure and develop the technology necessary for the needs of the 21st Century, especially as nations in Asia and, recently, South America continue to develop, and the human population increases, we will indeed be facing economic and political crisis, just as the Stern Report said.

That's not very "sustainable" is it?

Sources: Wikipedia-Resource Management Act

The Environmental Movement; what it means to me

We have all heard of the Environmental Movement. It means different things to everyone; to someone it may mean the simple protection of the environment; to others, it may mean the burning of SUVs and condos.

So, here and now, I'm discussing about what the Environmental Movement means to me.

Environmentalism has been in full-flight for at least three decades now. What have we seen? Rather than a better environment, we have seen the polar opposite from the "Environmentalists"; we have seen man's environment deteriorate.

Indeed, before the environmental movement started, Russians were seeing the terrible effects of "collective ownership" in the USSR. Many Russians had to regularly endure terrible pollution from factories built well below the standards of the average American factory.

The pollution in the USSR was a result of two things, the lack of property rights (thus no incentive to make the land clean and tidy) and the lack of the incentive to produce cleaner factories (competition didn't exist, so nobody cared about environmentally friendly products like we do in the West).

So, I suppose we have to thank the USSR for showing us that Communism is the solution. The removal of competition and property rights only has a negative effect on the environment.

However, many so-called "Environmentalists" pay very little attention to this. Instead, they pay attention to the far cleaner products of the Capitalist world.
Another strange thing about the "Environmentalists" is that, in the 1970s, many of them were saying that the world was cooling down, and that the Earth could be facing an Ice-Age. It seems that they have changed their story, probably because they were proven wrong in their attempt to end Capitalism.

Although, on a more worrying basis, they seem to want us extinct:

"I would wish to return as a killer virus to lower human population levels" (Prince Philip of England, World Wildlife Fund leader, speaking before the United Nations on March 30, 1990, Ibid.).

"Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along" (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service, The Christian News, June 15, 1992).

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." --Univ. of Calif. professor Kenneth Watt (Cited by Gary Benoit, "The Greatest Sham on Earth," The New American, Mar. 26, 1990).

"The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human being." --Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; quoted by Charles Oliver, "Liberation Zoology," Reason, June 1990).

"There really is no rational reason for saying a human being has special rights. ... A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder, Reader's Digest, June 1990).

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."
—David Foreman, Earth First!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

A bit worrying, isn't it? Those weren't made up; they're completely real.

So, by now you should've realised that the environmental movement, to me and hopefully to you, is more than a move to protect the environment, it is a move to rid man of the world. It is a man-hating move, one that sees men as the same as lice.

To that end, I propose a solution for the environment: the restoration of property rights coupled with free-market competition. As of now, we see many regulations on businesses, which restrict their limits to provide clean technology. It is self evident that there is a market for environmentally friendly products, so deregulating the market so that that market and the businesses competing within it will flourish, and therefore the enviornment will as well.

Property rights will help protect valuable land because it is exactly that. Valuable, pristine land is worth far more than non-valuable land, so therefore it would be in the interests of the propietor to keep it that way, so he/she can make big profits come selling time. The same works for water as well.

Animals would flourish as well. To, once again, make big profits come selling time, the propietor would breed the animal so there's more of it, meaning animals could come out of near extinction.

Anyway, that's my rant on the Environmental movement, I hope you've got a few more ideas about it now.