Comments on: Ecologically viable civilisation now hinges on the workings of the US Constitution http://www.fdsd.org/2009/11/ecologically-viable-civilisation-now-hinges-on-the-workings-of-the-us-constitution/ working to equip democracy to deliver sustainable development Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:06:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jeff http://www.fdsd.org/2009/11/ecologically-viable-civilisation-now-hinges-on-the-workings-of-the-us-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-61 Jeff Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:41:40 +0000 http://www.fdsd.org/?p=766#comment-61 "The USA was designed by proponents of ’small government’, determined to avoid over-mighty executive agency and to put in place checks and balances to prevent emergence of any authoritarian power. This system could well be dysfunctional in dealing with challenges on the scale of climate change and low-carbon transition." In case you didn't notice the contradiction you created in that paragraph, let me point it out to you: Treaties are a form of authoritarianism. Therefore, the Constitution will rightfully protect Americans from foreign-made restrictions on our freedoms. If we assume that the treaty would set mandates and quotas and other arbitrary requirements that are binding, why in the world would a free nation sign that agreement? Freedom depends on individual choice: you cannot, in good conscience, force free people to submit to your will, no matter how well-intentioned it is. End of story. Keep your undemocratic, illegal treaties and I'll keep my freedom, thank you. “The USA was designed by proponents of ’small government’, determined to avoid over-mighty executive agency and to put in place checks and balances to prevent emergence of any authoritarian power. This system could well be dysfunctional in dealing with challenges on the scale of climate change and low-carbon transition.”

In case you didn’t notice the contradiction you created in that paragraph, let me point it out to you:

Treaties are a form of authoritarianism. Therefore, the Constitution will rightfully protect Americans from foreign-made restrictions on our freedoms.

If we assume that the treaty would set mandates and quotas and other arbitrary requirements that are binding, why in the world would a free nation sign that agreement? Freedom depends on individual choice: you cannot, in good conscience, force free people to submit to your will, no matter how well-intentioned it is. End of story. Keep your undemocratic, illegal treaties and I’ll keep my freedom, thank you.

]]>