Green Liberty 2012 Presidential Campaign
Green Liberty Party Platform 2012, 05.07.2012 20:29
Green Liberty Party is a fusion party between the Greens and the Libertarians that provides an alternative to the current status quo of Republicans and Democrats that are both heavily under the infuence of corporate lobbyists. To alleviate the corporate lobbyist dependency the GLP will not accept any campaign contributions larger than 10.00 from any anonymous individuals, and no money from corporations or professional lobbyist groups.
GLP 2012 Presidential Campaign; No Corporate Lobbyist Funding Allowed!
Green Liberty Party Platform 2012
The Green Liberty Party (GLP) values are based upon a combination of green ecology and social libertarian principles. The GLP platform includes several core ideals that seek to expand liberty for the people while enabling greater ecological compatibility with less destructive environmental practices used for harnessing resources and energy. Some GLP positions are ideologically similar to Libertarian ideals while others are ideologically similar to Green Party ideals. The goals of the GLP is to “steal votes” from both the Democrats and the Republicans, using a logical and effective platform to draw upon the common ground shared by many on the left vs. right dichotomy that are increasingly being alienated by the actions of the only two establishment parties. The GLP recognizes that ALL third party participation is limited as both Democrats and Republicans work together to ensure that theirs are the only two voices heard at political debates. This enables the status quo of neoliberal Democrats and neoconservative Republicans to remain in power, only providing a charade of democracy during elections. The two establishment parties maintain their grip on power as both finance their campaigns with donations from corporate and other special interest lobbyist groups that they must obey if they wish to be reelected. The GLP position is to campaign through word of mouth and over the internet on free sites without accepting any donations from any lobbyists. This may place the GLP at a disadvantage as the status quo political parties are able to purchase media advertisements to reach a much larger audience. However, the GLP position is to protect their candidate’s integrity by refusing to play the corrupt games of lobbyists buying favors from establishment politicians.
GLP Domestic Platform;
Legalize and decriminalize ALL drugs for people above age 21
The current U.S. prison system is overcrowded in every state, and many are locked up for simple possession of some sort of drug. This so-called “war on drugs” wastes taxpayer dollars as treating addictions as criminal acts will never solve the problem, though prison guards and wardens may feel it is “necessary” as prison overcrowding supports their ongoing employment. The GLP position on ANY drug use is that the individual remains free until they commit a crime against anyone else such as theft or robbery to obtain drugs.
However, many drug users can function and are able to obtain an income and continue to use drugs recreationally without engaging in any other criminal activity. For functional drug addicts there can be an option for voluntary rehab, though if an individual cannot function on drugs without committing other crimes such as theft or robbery then rehab must be mandatory. In these cases it makes more sense to use mandatory rehabilitation than the prison system to correct the malfunctioning behaviors caused by drug addiction. These mandatory rehab programs should include a component of working for room and food with an organic garden where those struggling with addiction can learn to grow their own food.
Drugs should be sold in dispensaries without any federal intervention. By selling drugs legally in dispensaries, the violent illegal drug cartels and gangs that profit immensely from importing and manufacturing illegal drugs would experience a significant loss of income. Though people may find the thought of purchasing meth, heroin or crack cocaine at a store repulsive, we need to be honest and understand that there will always be a desire for the hard drugs mentioned above. Currently the desire for these drugs is met by the drug cartels importing and selling illegally, with many innocent bystanders being harmed or killed in the crossfire between rival gangs and police.
Legalize medical cannabis dispensaries in every state
Medical cannabis users deserve the right to travel in any state of the union and be able to purchase medical cannabis in a safe dispensary anywhere in the U.S. This would revoke any federal prohibition against medical cannabis anywhere in the U.S., based upon the California model of not for profit dispensaries selling medical cannabis. States can decide what type of regulation and documentation system that best fits their population. The federal position on cannabis for GLP will be decriminalized and strictly hands off, allowing the states to make their own laws on medical cannabis.
Legalize and isolate hard drug use to specific localized regions
Individuals who make the choice to use hard drugs such as methamphetamine, crack cocaine and heroin should not be arrested and put in prison. However, since these hard drugs have no recognized medical value and can result in physical and mental illness the users of hard drugs should be encouraged to voluntarily isolate themselves from the remaining community when actively using. Since these drugs are also very physiologically addictive, some option for voluntary rehabilitation should be available for those individuals struggling with addiction to these hard drugs. For those who choose to continue using hard drugs, police would encourage these individuals gather in specific locations of their region designated for hard drug use and stay away from the general public. Excessive drug use that results in overtly suicidal and/or self-destructive injurious behavior should be treated as a mental health crisis, not as a criminal offense.
Legalize prostitution and allow brothels in every state
Similar to drugs, prostitution exists illegally in every state, though as of yet only the state of Nevada has had enough common sense to allow legal prostitution in brothels. Legal prostitution in brothels is much safer for sex workers and customers as the brothels are regulated to ensure clean bills of health for all sex workers being tested regularly for STDs. As brothels are in a fixed location with security, sex workers are safer from assault and violence from aggressive customers than they would be out on the streets, and abusive pimps are no longer in the picture. The GLP platform is to allow legal brothels in every state and encourage any prostitutes working illegally to instead work at a legal brothel of their choice.
The GLP position on drugs, prostitution, gambling and other vices is simple. The government is not going to be anyone’s babysitter. People who make the choice to consume the substances and services as mentioned above have the responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner that does not interfere with the welfare and safety of others or their personal property. What people do to or with their own body is totally their business so long as they harm none in the process and the federal government has no reason to intervene in these choices. Voluntary rehabilitation centers are available as needed for those wishing help in overcoming any addictive behaviors resulting from the consumption of said substances and services.
Restore ecosystems using traditional indigenous knowledge to pre-Columbus conditions
Our nation rests upon soils claimed and taken by force, coercion and deception from indigenous people who resided here in North America for around 10,000 years. Since the arrival of Columbus and colonialist immigrants, the land once in the stewardship by indigenous peoples has been drastically altered and in many cases ecologically destroyed. Several treaties between the U.S. government and indigenous nations made to ensure peace were not honored. The GLP platform includes honoring ALL treaties with indigenous peoples of North America and encourages ALL post Columbus immigrants to choose a tribe to their liking and learn the language and follow the culture and lifestyle of indigenous peoples to pre-Columbus standards.
This pre-Columbus condition includes how people obtain shelter, food and water. The GLP platform is that having clean rivers, lakes, wetlands and oceans teeming with native fish is in the best interest of everyone. The platform includes restoring habitat for other edible native plants and trees like oaks for harvesting and processing acorn flour, restoring bison, elk, pronghorn and other native ungulates (hooved mammals) in expansive game reserves where hunting is monitored and regulated for the greater good of all, including the animals themselves. The GLP position is that solar energy absorbed by native grasses that are then consumed by native ungulates that are hunted and consumed by people remains the most ecologically sensible means of obtaining protein. Certain hardy species of cattle such as Texas longhorns are suitable for returning to their wild state and being harvested by hunting on game reserves. The model for the grazing ungulates game reserve is a National Grassland with controlled access points to monitor hunting takes.
The GLP platform is to cease and desist in supporting agribusinesses with taxpayer subsidies, or enabling water theft from rivers at the expense of native fish. One example of enabling water theft is allowing San Joaquin Valley agribusinesses to grow tree crops that are far too water dependent for the almost desert conditions found there regularly. Some GLP agriculture reforms would include encouraging the planting of drought tolerant native crops such as high protein tepary beans that do not need any excessive water inputs, as they evolved in the drought conditions of the Sonoran desert. This is part of the restoration of pre-Columbus ecosystem conditions that depend upon the logic of traditional indigenous knowledge and practices of hunting native ungulates, gathering edible wild plants and tending crops grown on floodplains in drought prone regions. Modern technology that is not disruptive to ecosystem processes should be used to enhance the growing and processing of indigenous foods.
Restoration of Small Scale Locally Owned and Operated Permaculture Farms Everywhere
Many non-native crops can be grown in the U.S. with few environmental problems provided that their climate of origin is similar to the climate they are being grown in. The GLP position is to encourage start-up small farms that are observant of the climactic origins of their crops and can match them with similar conditions found here. The GLP position is to support and encourage permaculture farming that uses both animals and plants in symbiosis, including companion planting and height intercropping. The use of permaculture on small locally operated farms should receive some rewards from the government until they are stable. Once established permaculture farms are self-supporting and require little to no inputs of either synthetic fertilizers and/or synthetic petroleum derived pesticides and/or herbicides that conventional agribusinesses depend upon for their economic survival.
Domestic Animals Raised on Free Range Ranches, Not in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
Many problems related to consumption of domestic animals such as cattle, pigs, chickens and others can be traced to the CAFOs. Here overcrowding and tight confinement results in unsanitary and physically uncomfortable conditions for these unfortunate animals. The tight confinement prevents animals from getting regular exercise, resulting in conditions of depression and lethargy in CAFO animals. The tight confinement causes a rapid spread of pathogens amongst the closely housed animals, requiring inputs of strong antibiotics to prevent bovine pandemics from spreading throughout the CAFO unit. The regular use of antibiotics results in the pathogens evolving a resistance to the antibiotics and creates dangerous strains capable of rapidly breeding in the close conditions. Many recent outbreaks including E. coli ‘0157H7’ are a direct result of CAFO conditions creating newer more aggressive strains of pathogens including “prions” responsible for mad cow disease and related Creutzfeld-Jacob disease (CJD) in humans.
The prions are not technically alive as they are a misfolding protein sequence that causes small microscopic holes to form inside the brain. Prions in CJD result in a gradual dementia that is often misdiagnosed as Alzheimers or dementia as the symptoms are nearly identical. If there is no autopsy performed to take microscopic images for searching for prion holes there will not be a correct diagnosis of CJD, the actual cause of dementia in many cases. The source of prions is believed to be a result of feeding dead or “downer” cows to living cows ground up and mixed into their grain and corn feed. Another potential path for prions is from chicken manure being included in cattle feed.
The phasing out of CAFOs will eliminate most aggressive and antibiotic resistant bacteria currently causing outbreaks. The natural immunity of cattle and other domestic animals is enhanced when they live on free range conditions without confinement, reducing the need for antibiotics. The argument in favor of CAFOS as “more efficient” is becoming illogical when examining their negative consequences and their cumulative costs on the ecosystem and human health.
Nor is it logical to promote veganism or vegetarianism as the only other option to simply engaging with and eating animals in a more positive way for all parties involved. The process of raising animals in CAFOs is a faulty method of consuming animals. Overdosing on medicine does not make the medicine itself a negative entity. If our society only follows one incorrect process consistently when eating animals, it becomes easier to make the false claim that “eating animals is wrong because they are forced to suffer in CAFOS.” This fallacy of this logic used by many to promote veganism or vegetarianism assumes that CAFOs are the only way that humans can consume animals and no other options exist that would prevent the suffering of the animal. The CAFOs cause suffering in animals by depriving them of exercise and fresh air that they would have under natural free range conditions. Beyond the ethics of causing sentient beings to suffer is the physiological result of depression and poor health requiring antibiotics to boost their immune system. Confinement and lack of exercise leads to depression in most mammals and birds and eventually weakens their immune system. These two factors; depression weakening their immune systems and confinement enabling rapid breeding of aggressive pathogens combine to create a downward spiral of antibiotic dependency and ever more resistant pathogens. There is no escape from this negative cycle as the pathogens will continue to evolve resistance to antibiotics. Now will the depressed moods of the confined animals improve and their immunity will be weakened further by generational dependency on antibiotics. The only logical escape from the problems of antibiotic dependency, weakened immunity and evolution of resistant pathogens is to end the source of all these problems, the CAFOS themselves.
The GLP will take the step of eliminating CAFOS from the process and enable humans to obtain their protein from free range domestic animals that do not suffer until their “final moment” in which a sleep inducing tranquilizer could be employed to make the slaughter as painless as possible. By eliminating CAFOS the GLP will also accomplish the following goals; improve animal and human health by removing potential for pathogen overbreeding, improve fisheries and watershed quality by preventing manure from entering water, improve mental and physical health and immunity of domestic animals by allowing exercise and fresh air on free range for the entire duration of their life, grass fed instead of grain fed cattle will have healthier digestive systems.
Anaerobic Manure Digesters to Reduce Pollution and Retain Methane for Energy
In addition the waste products of animals housed in CAFOs often collects in manure lagoon pits where unexpected rainstorms or regular downwards seepage can cause contamination of the watershed from bacteria and excessive nitrates entering the watershed. The primary reason for the several hundred square mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico surrounding the Mississippi River is the overloaded capacity of the water transporting nitrates from the drainage area collecting agribusinesses wastes during storm run-off events.
By raising and slaughtering animals on separate sites at ranches the problems caused by CAFOs will be eliminated. The problems of waste disposal on the ranch can be eliminated by installing anaerobic manure digesters that use methanogen bacteria to break down the manure and create methane as a waste product in the process. These manure digesting bacteria are anaerobes, a type of species that can only function in the absence of oxygen. The anaerobic digester maintains the anaerobic conditions of the animal’s intestines and enables the methanogen bacteria to continue their work breaking down food waste and producing methane gas as their waste product. The waste product of methanogens is a fuel product currently being unharnessed, anaerobic digesters on every ranch will retain the methane for energy uses.
In current manure lagoons the methanogens release methane directly into the atmosphere, in the process contributing to global warming. Ranchers would benefit from having anaerobic manure digesters on site on in a central location for their particular community. Research has shown that using anaerobic digesters prior to fertilizer applications reduces the pathogens to negligible amounts. This is relevant as the current pollution along coasts and near river deltas are a direct result of manure runoff containing nitrates entering the watershed. As the nitrates enter the ocean, they are available for uptake by plankton and algae blooms that consume large amounts of oxygen and cause dead zones in the water. The overpopulation of plankton and algae from fertilizer runoff causes fish die offs from eliminating oxygen from the waters and the bacteria that consume the dead plankton and algae continue to remove oxygen from the water. By installing anaerobic manure digesters on every ranch the fertilizer runoff will be negligible and the dead zones in the oceans will become rich in oxygen and fish once the nitrates stop entering the watershed.
Human cities and towns can harness their methane from enhanced sewage treatment facilities once installed with anaerobic manure digesters. The odor noticed near outdated sewage treatment facilities is a result of escaping methane. The anaerobic manure digester traps methane for energy use through combustion and does not cause odor as no methane is allowed to escape. Populated regions near rivers and coasts that suffer from beach closures due to sewage entering the water will not have this problem once they install their anaerobic manure digesters. The sewage leaks under current sewage treatment standards
FEMA Reorganization to Prevention of Flooding by Setback Levees and Hydrologically Sensible Development
Currently taxpayers are coerced into supporting choices made by developers that result in regular flooding and related clean up expenses. Following the expected destruction of homes built to close to rivers, oceans and other bodies of water, the individuals repeat the same mistake by rebuilding in the exact same place as where they were just flooded. This sort of repetition of insanity is supported by influx of taxpayer dollars that are considered disaster relief but in reality is rebuilding relief. Of course rebuilding in the same flood prone habitat will result in another flood and related costs for rebuilding in the exact same place, thus perpetuating the cycle of making others pay for the repeated mistakes of a few.
The GLP position on river developments is to restore the meander of rivers and give them extra width by setting back levees several hundreds of feet back from their current positions. Setback levees are proven methods of flood control as the river has more width and area to spread out and more ground to soak up water. By giving the rivers more room to spread out, there is less pressure on levee walls and thus no risk of levee failure that causes severe flooding. Following a flood the setback levees can create oxbow lakes and other additional wetland features that will enhance wild game bird populations. Other options for setback levees include seasonal floodplain farming as springtime floods will deposit nutrient rich topsoil sediments directly onto the floodplain. Currently the narrow levees on most rivers force the topsoil sediment directly into the ocean, wasting a valuable and free fertilizer.
The GLP position on oceanic development is to restore a strip of dunes along the beaches before building any more buildings along beaches. Following the strip of dunes will be a walking path and bike lane, another strip of dunes and then the road, then the buildings. These double dune strips running parallel to the shore will be the most effective form of flood control known to exist. Dunes are a natural form of sandbagging that uses the roots of native dune plants, trees, shrubs and grasses to capture and hold sand in a living solid wall several meters above average sea level.
Non-interventionist Foreign Policy; Minding our own Business Overseas, Paramedics for Natural Disaster
Since WW2, the U.S. has attempted a foreign policy path that is interventionist. To quote Texas Senator Ron Paul (R), we are behaving as if we are “policing the world”. The GLP platform is based upon the reality that constant intervention and meddling in the affairs of other nations is making the U.S. more enemies daily. The sole reason that terrorist groups like Al Queda exists is our imbalanced foreign policy that persecutes Muslim people through military occupations, drone bombings killing civilians and a biased support of Israel above the rights of occupied Palestinians. The GLP platform to fight terrorism is by attrition, a lack of enrollment due to lack of righteous anger. Put simply, if we remove our boots from the toes of others, they will most likely stop trying to push us off.
This concept was mentioned by Republican candidate Ron Paul during a primary debate, though was claimed to be helping terrorists by rival Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani. However, all Sen. Paul did was inject some much needed honesty into a party rife with deception and corruption. The GLP is in agreement with Ron Paul that if the U.S. foreign policy avoids instigation through military occupations, there will likely be lower enrollment in terrorist groups like Al Queda. There will always be conflicts between different nations, religions and ethnic groups as this is part of the human mentality. It is not the job of any nation to intervene in the relations between other nations.
Other foreign policy options to continued military occupations include a specially trained group of medical and emergency staff of paramedics and fire rescue to assist people in other nations in the event of any natural disaster. By helping others in their time of need and only upon their request our nation will gain respect and admiration of other nations instead of fear and distrust as they currently experience from ongoing military occupations and CIA coups meddling with public elections.
Repeal NAFTA and WTO Free Trade Agreements to Reduce Illegal Immigration
The topic of illegal immigration is a contentious issue for both establishment political parties, though neither party has the correct solution. Listening to both parties repeat their propaganda ad infinitum really brings to mind the imaginary twins “Tweedledee and Tweedledum” from the story “Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass” by Lewis Carroll. In this story the two twins repeatedly argue nonsensical points with one another until Alice leaves them both in frustration to argue their absurd ideas with one another into eternity. Obviously people with common sense will experience the same frustration with our own version of very real Tweedledees and Tweedledums in the Democrat and Republican parties.
The problem with the bipartisan positions on immigration is that neither party is willing to examine the role that the free trade agreements NAFTA and WTO have played in weakening the autonomy, independence and sovereignty of nations such as Mexico, Haiti, Guatemala and many others. The pattern would show that since the passage of NAFTA and WTO, many nations have experienced their native grain farmers being forced out of business by taxpayer subsidized imports from the U.S. When NAFTA and WTO removed trade protections, the local farmers of the above mentioned nations witnessed their rice and corn (maize) crops being undercut by heavily subsidized grains and making them unable to remain in business, eventually losing their land and being forced into the illegal immigration stream.
The GLP position on NAFTA and WTO is for immediate withdrawal and repeal of these destructive free trade agreements with an attached apology for all the trouble caused since the implementation. Instead of making attempts to rework the physics of the reality we created by building border fences or trying to police immigrants or the other extreme of open borders and amnesty for all, the most logical and effective method is solving the problem of undocumented immigration at the source. The initial cause is instability and the economic inequality between the U.S. and other nations worsened by the passage of NAFTA and WTO. The logical solution to begin restoring stability and economic balance between U.S. and other nations is to repeal these two free trade agreements. After all, neither NAFTA nor the WTO was written in stone tablets handed down by some Higher Power, these free trade agreements are flawed ideas of specific humans who may not even have had the best of intentions in mind when drafting these documents as their main beneficiary has been large multinational corporations.
Here in the U.S. the passage of NAFTA and the WTO has also resulted in the loss of small independent farmers and their replacement by large agribusiness corporations that often exploit illegal immigrants in order to profit. Furthermore these large agribusiness corporations have been feeding at the taxpayer trough for decades and without these subsidies and their workforce of illegal immigrants would not be able to remain in business. The GLP position on agribusiness is that everyone plays on the same field and large corporations should be able to function with ZERO taxpayer inputs and maintain a workforce of documented legal immigrants or simply go out of business. The libertarian position of free market economics needs to be applied to small independent farmers and large agribusiness corporations equally. Without the taxpayer subsidies and steady undocumented immigrant workforce it is likely that as agribusiness corporations go out of business they will be replaced by small independent farmers with a legal workforce of both immigrant and domestic workers that can now thrive without the shadow of the subsidized agribusiness corporations undercutting their prices.
The GLP position on trade is to repeal NAFTA and the WTO, then encourage rural Mexico’s ejido models of collective farming on small to medium plots of land. This would reclaim the agribusiness plots and encourage small independent farmers to restore permaculture methods of farming. Independent permaculture farms are self-sustaining with animal fertilizers and symbiotic crops replacing the need for synthetic petroleum derived fertilizers and pesticides.
By repealing NAFTA and the WTO and helping to restore economic and political stability through supporting independent farming collectives and ejidos, future immigration to the U.S. will be voluntary and legal, not coerced and undocumented. Independent ejido farms can swap labor seasonally instead of forcing one side over to the other side. When economic and political stability is restored in Mexico, Haiti, Guatemala and other nations the independent farmers will be able to recreate the agrarian social safety net for their community and thus decrease the poverty of the region. The restoration of ejido farmer food networks will reduce the need for people to immigrate to the U.S. out of necessity. It would be possible for a better life at home in their nations when economic stability taken away by NAFTA and the WTO is returned.
Those undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S. do not justify blanket amnesty nor warrant mass deportations and detentions. Those who are apprehended engaging in criminal activities should be deported and/or jailed depending on the severity of their acts. Those who do not engage in criminal activity should remain unmolested and try their honest best to become legal citizens over time. Offer dual citizenship to people with families on both sides of the border to facilitate easier travel. Documentation is a protection for the individual from dangers such as kidnapping, extortion, labor and housing disputes among others. Other efforts to engage with undocumented immigrants as a unified group would be expensive, counterproductive and futile.
Undocumented immigrants place themselves in the greatest danger of death or injury when seeking employment using false documents in occupations such as CAFO feedlots, slaughterhouses and agribusiness plantations. These jobs are dangerous and should not be in existence as the model of industrial food production is flawed beyond repair. The restoration of independent permaculture farms and ejido collectives in the U.S. and Mexico would alleviate the immigration problems by enabling cross pollination of ideas and labor without the economic coercion and political instability created by NAFTA and the WTO.
Harness Rooftop Solar Thermal, Vertical Windmills, and Rainwater Gravitational Potential Energy
Using the concepts of physics the average household could increase their personal energy harnessing capacity by installing several simple additions to their rooftops and surroundings. The solar thermal potential is to harness steam energy and heat water using solar radiation and clear glass and flexible plastic covering from recycled material. Circulating hot water through glass tubes converts to steam and can travel through spinning propellers that charge batteries with an electric energy gain. The hot water is available for nighttime storage in an insulated tank. Vertical windmills about 1-3 feet tall can be placed along the rooftop in a line to harness wind energy from every direction. The charge will run along the same line to a storage battery. Finally rainwater collecting on the roof’s surface area can be collected and funneled into a tube where propellers spin and harness the downwards potential energy of the rainwater traveling to a storage cistern below ground.
Encourage Community Participation and Locally Based Co-operatives to Replace Corporations
The issues of local regions do not need to be micromanaged by federal agents, nor do other outside corporations need to be involved with the local harvesting of resources. There are too many instances in which a corporation from Texas has hijacked a local corporation or intruded into a community in California and pillaged their resources. One example is Maxxam Inc., a holding corporation from Houston that took over a local logging company named Pacific Lumber. The reason posed by Maxxam was “unliquidated assets” as Pacific Lumber was harvesting 50 percent of their resources and leaving the remainder standing to provide soil stability. The early eighties following Maxxam taking over the locally owned Pacific Lumber witnessed 100 percent take of forest resources in the form of clear cutting and then the resulting erosion and flooding or rivers. The locally owned Pacific Lumber Company was able to maintain their business, build a lumber town to house workers in Scotia and pay their employees reasonable salaries all without needing to clear cut. The Pacific Lumber Company prior to Maxxam clearly understood that leaving 50 percent of the trees standing in their cut was needed to maintain soil stability as the steep slopes were erosion prone in the frequent winter rainstorms.
Maxxam either failed to understand the concept of clearcutting would leading to erosion or they did know this fact and failed to care. Based upon the obvious science and warnings offered it was probably the latter option. Maxxam profited during their nearly three decade reign in Humboldt County, CA and managed to wreak havoc on the local redwoods ecosystem in the process. Recently Pacific Lumber declared bankruptcy despite Maxxam having profited in billions over the years.
Many professional loggers who remember Pacific Lumber prior to the takeover by Maxxam will state that logging is a long term economic option yet should not be abused for short term by by over logging and not leaving enough for the future loggers. It is determined as fact that areas suffering clear cuts experience soil erosion and thus will have reduced growth from nutrient loss. This means that a region’s local economy cannot be benefitted by clear cutting for short term profits as opposed to leaving 50 percent remaining for long term economic stability. Leaving enough for the future generations is paramount for the survival of the human species and many others. If short term profits require clear cutting then the problem is the reasoning that inspires a corporation to seek short term profits instead of placing greater value on long term economic stability.
There are other alternatives to corporate takeovers and long distance corporations extracting resources from communities while causing ecological damages. It is difficult for local loggers and environmentalists to travel to Houston, Texas from Humboldt County, California to attend the legal hearings concerning the Pacific Lumber Corporation. However, if local residents have concerns with the logging practices of the Scotia or the Weaverville Community Forest there are options for recourse available without any long distance traveling. Often times when an out of state corporations commits ecological damages there are only a few local meetings for public comment and protests options are limited to those with travel resources.
It would be more effective for public comment and overall fair play if the community were directly involved in resource extraction and industrial manufacture. The community would form their own organization resembling a not for profit entity that would distribute financial gains amongst the workers and remaining funds would re-enter the community by funding schools, roads and other needs. This would give the community control over resources and gain profits from the extraction and manufacture of their local resources.
These are the core GLP positions for a future that is working together with the natural processes of our ecosystem and seeks to benefit from working together with our environment instead of trying to dominate the ecosystem. By applying traditional pre-Columbus indigenous knowledge with modern technology society can reduce costs incurred from ignoring or trying to control processes without understanding symbiotic benefits of symbiotic relations between humans and their ecosystem.
The GLP positions are based upon logic and science with applications of traditional indigenous knowledge. The GLP prevents political pressures on their positions as the GLP will not accept campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists and will run our campaign on a shoestring budget with word of mouth and support of our positions being the motivating factor. Individuals without ties to corporate lobbyists may donate to the GLP in amounts less than ten dollars per person to avoid the trap of lobbyists influencing political parties.
Potential GLP 2012 Campaign Staff
This is based upon the following individuals who are deemed to be generally honest abandoning their prior party (if Republican or Democrat) and becoming Independent (I) or joining the GLP. The GLP position is to end the corruption of the established Democrats and Republicans by bringing forth the most honest among them and encouraging them to quit their former (R) and (D) alliances. Those individuals who are honest are often mistreated by their own respective parties as they do not follow the corrupt influences of corporate lobbyists. The GLP enables those few honest Democrats and Republicans the opportunity to be appreciated for their honesty instead of being mocked and ridiculed as they currently are by their establishment parties. All former Republicans and Democrats who join the GLP will be individuals of integrity who choose to value honesty above popularity with corporate lobbyists.
President; Mark Miller (I)
Vice President; Cynthia McKinney (D)
Secretary of State; Ron Paul (R)
Secretary of Interior; Dennis Kucinich (D)
Secretary of Green Jobs (setback levees, biomass methane, wind, solar, etc…); Van Jones (I)
Secretary of Legal Vices (prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc…); Jesse Ventura (I)
Secretary of Nutrition and Health; Gary Null (I)
|Download this article in pdf format >>|
|Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >>|
|Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >>|
|Email this article to someone >>|
|Make a quick comment on this article >>|
Can Greens & Libertarians Topple Status Quo?
06.07.2012 - 00:24
Green Party Watch: Is there hope for a Green/Libertarian alliance?
September 5th, 2009 · 116 Comments
Posted by Gregg Jocoy at Green Party Watch:
In a lengthy article, J.E. Robertson discusses what s/he sees as a coming rift in the Republican Party between “big tent” Republicans who want the party to be a majority party and “intolerant” Republicans who want a pure party.
As s/he develops the argument, s/he turns eventually to the idea of a Green/Libertarian coalition.
…there is significant overlap between the policy goals of the Green party and those of the Libertarian party, despite deep philosophical differences on the role of government. A multi-state coalition among representatives of these two parties could forge a path for viable opposition to the two-party stranglehold on power. The effects would likely see one of the two major parties pushed into third place.
The stage is set for all sorts of arguments now, but I would ask but one thing. Before adding your comments, read the entire piece to understand the concepts in full, and then give us the benefits of your thinking. If we are to break the stranglehold the corporate parties have on the American electorate, we must take some risks.
As Congresswoman McKinney said, "If we are to get something new, we must do something new."
J.E. Robertson writes;
"The Green-Lib Coalition
What Republicans need to worry about is triangulation. They have been fighting a pitched battle against Democratic “liberalism”, while offering no coherent platform of public services or government accountability that is strictly “conservative” yet able to operate in the system that already exists. This makes them first of all a reluctant party of radical change, and second, a party at risk of being boxed out ideologically by more policy-oriented parties.
For instance, there is significant overlap between the policy goals of the Green party and those of the Libertarian party, despite deep philosophical differences on the role of government. A multi-state coalition among representatives of these two parties could forge a path for viable opposition to the two-party stranglehold on power. The effects would likely see one of the two major parties pushed into third place.
As the numbers stand now, a Green-Lib coalition might be able to shave as much as 10% off Democratic support nationwide, assuming Democrats or liberal independents —still wary of repeating the 2000 election, where a Green candidate effectively denied the Democratic candidate the White House— believed the coalition was big enough to keep the Republicans at bay. Republicans might lose anywhere from 20% to 35% of their support, as they struggle against Green-Lib claims that they are not rights-oriented and not green enough.
This may be a little bit like fantasy baseball, but there’s something to the idea: Bill Maher, a staunch libertarian and a committed liberal, clearly sides with Green party politics on a number of issues. His audience sees the world through a very complex, but real and palpable, Green-Lib prism of political choices. Voters are looking for something more “their own” nowadays, something different from and more personally relevant and attuned than the old prevailing norms.
The question of why or how a Green-Lib coalition might play out —and that is really just one example— will have a lot to do with what party is bleeding votes in what way, and why? Right now, the Republican party is bleeding votes because 1) Bush’s politics failed on a grand scale; 2) the party has acquired an air of radical intolerance; 3) the party appears to be “out of touch” with the average voter; and 4) because Obama’s 21st century message of dynamic vision, inclusiveness, public service and sustainability, is prevailing.
Those four factors all suggest a Green-Lib coalition would more easily capture would-be Republican votes —perhaps all of them independents— than Democratic votes, as the Democrats are now more united and more determined than at any time in nearly 50 years. Pres. Obama needs to make sure he keeps his own message, his own revolutionary pragmatist framework at the center of the Democratic discourse, because that is what brought over 65 million voters to his cause in 2008.
Greens and Libertarians:The yin and yang of our political future
by Dan Sullivan
originally appearing in Green Revolution, Volume 49, No. 2, summer, 1992
Over the past three decades, people have become dissatisfied with both major parties, and two new minor parties are showing promise of growth and success. They are the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. These are not the only new parties, but they are the only ones that promise to attract people from across the political spectrum. Most other small parties are either clearly to the left of the Democrats or to the right of the Republicans. Such parties would have a place in a system that accommodates multiple parties, but are doomed to failure in a two-party system.
The Libertarian Party is made up mostly of former conservatives who object to the Republican Party's penchant for militarism and its use of government to entrench powerful interests and shield them from market forces. The Green Party is made up mostly of former liberals who object to the Democratic Party's penchant for centralized bureaucracy and its frequent hypocritical disregard for natural systems of ecological balance, ranging from the human metabolism and the family unit to the ecology of the planet.
Both minor parties attempt to adhere to guidelines that are much clearer than those of either major party. Libertarians focus on rights of individuals to control their own lives, limited only by the prohibition against interference with the rights of others. These rights include their right to the fruits of their labor and the right to freely associate and form contracts. They advocate limiting government to protecting those basic rights.
Greens advocate ten key values (ecological wisdom, grass roots democracy, social justice, non-violence, decentralization, community-based economics, post-patriarchal values, respect for diversity, personal and global responsibility, and sustainable future focusas a guide for government as well as for their own party organization.)
These different guidelines underscore basic differences between the approaches of the two parties and their members. Libertarians tend to be logical and analytical. They are confident that their principles will create an ideal society, even though they have no consensus of what that society would be like. Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive and imaginative. They have clear images of what kind of society they want, but are fuzzy about the principles on which that society would be based.
Ironically, Libertarians tend to be more utopian and uncompromising about their political positions, and are often unable to focus on politically winnable proposals to make the system more consistent with their overall goals. Greens on the other hand, embrace immediate proposals with ease, but are often unable to show how those proposals fit in to their ultimate goals.
The most difficult differences to reconcile, however, stem from baggage that members of each party have brought with them from their former political affiliations. Most Libertarians are overly hostile to government and cling to the fiction that virtually all private fortunes are legitimately earned. Most Greens are overly hostile to free enterprise and cling to the fiction that harmony and balance can be achieved through increased government intervention.
Republicans and Democrats will never reconcile these differences, for whatever philosophical underpinnings they have are overwhelmed by vested interests that dominate their internal political processes. These vested interests thrive on keeping the distorted hostilities alive and suppressing any philosophical perspectives that might lead to rational resolution of conflict.
But because minor parties have no real power, they are still primarily guided by values and principles. Committed to pursuing truth above power, they should be more willing to challenge prejudices and expose flaws in their current positions.
There is nothing mutually exclusive between the ten key values of the Greens and the principals of the Libertarians. By reconciling these values and principles, we can bring together people whose allegiance to truth is stronger than their biases.
This could be of great value to both parties, partly because any new party that wants to break into a two-party system has to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. But even more importantly, each party needs attributes the other has to offer. Libertarians need the intuitive awareness of the Greens to keep them from losing touch with people's real values, and Greens need the analytical prowess of the Libertarians to keep them from indulging in emotional self-deception. Libertarians can teach Greens about the spirit of enterprise and the wonders of economic freedom, and Greens can teach Libertarians about the spirit of compassion and the wonders of community cohesion.
Reconciliation is absolutely necessary. Even if one of the parties could rise to power, it could do great harm by implementing its current agenda in disregard for the perspective of the other. Moreover, proposals that violate values and principles of one party often violate those of the other. If members of both groups come together to discuss each other's proposals, they are likely not only to find areas of agreement, but to find conflicts between each group's proposals and its own principals. If this happens, and the two parties work in concert, they stand a real chance of overtaking one of the major parties and drastically altering the political power structure.
Many third parties have had important impacts on American politics, but the last time a political party was dislodged was when the Republicans knocked the ailing Whig party out of contention over 130 years ago. It should be noted that the Republicans were a coalition of several minor parties with seemingly differing agendas, including the Abolitionist Party, the Free-Soil Party, the American (or Know-Nothing) Party, disaffected northern Democrats, and most of the members of the dying Whig Party. A similar coalition of parties has a much better chance of repeating this success today.
Anyone who looks at current national platforms of Greens and Libertarians will conclude that bringing these groups together is no easy task. For example, the Libertarian platform states dogmatically that they "oppose any and all increases in the rate of taxation or categories of taxpayers, including the elimination of deductions, exemptions, or credits in the name of 'fairness,' 'simplicity,' or 'neutrality to the free market.' No tax can ever be fair, simple, or neutral to the free market." On the other hand, the national platform of the Greens leaves one with the impression that they never met a tax they didn't like.
Yet the historical roots of the Greens and the Libertarians are quite similar. That is, early movements for alternative, intentional communities that live in harmony with nature greatly influenced, and were influenced by, anarcho-syndicalists who advanced principals now embraced by the Libertarian Party. This essay will attempt to show that the differences that have emerged are due less to stated principals and values of either group than to the baggage members have brought to each party from their liberal and conservative backgrounds.
The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists,
geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists,
and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural
intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism
falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building
alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation.
Green-Libertarian Coalition vs. Establishment>