Sustainable For Man Versus Sustainable For Parasites

Certain words in the political sphere tend to stress me out. Sustainability is one. To me, for something to be sustainable, it should be able to exist without a huge socialist state. Since I've become more concerned about food quality, I've grudgingly used this word from time to time in relation to agriculture, but it's increasingly clear people don't mean what I mean. From my perspective, we need to get rid of excessive regulation, which would allow small farmers to sell me grass fed meat, eggs, raw dairy- whatever the farmer and I agree to. The rules surrounding the slaughter of animals are the biggest obstacle facing small farmers; the subsidies of wheat, corn, and soy keep the American agricultural industry churning out pain in small bite-sized packets.

I started thinking about the divergence between what I think sustainability is and what others think after listening to Rebecca Thistlethwaite being interviewed on Nature's Harmony Farmcast about the loss of her farm. For the most part, I was pretty sympathetic to her, but when she starts fussing about consumer choices, especially what she calls 'petty' or 'personal' health questions- well she reminded me of the disparity. Well, they all did, because practically everybody harped on how consumers have to move heaven and earth to buy their products, but apparently somebody wants to keep using soy feed! We start leaving the territory of people freely buying and selling and get into a bit of do-what-I-say-because-I-know-better-than-you.
Still though, these folks are basically trying to do good things. It's sad they don't notice what their comrades in the sustainability movement have been up to:

Admittedly, it seems a little over the top, but I don't think it is. With just a little reading I found this:

E) Moving towards environmentally sound pricing

4.24. Without the stimulus of prices and market signals that make clear to producers and consumers the environmental costs of the consumption of energy, materials and natural resources and the generation of wastes, significant changes in consumption and production patterns seem unlikely to occur in the near future.

4.25. Some progress has begun in the use of appropriate economic instruments to influence consumer behaviour. These instruments include environmental charges and taxes, deposit/refund systems, etc. This process should be encouraged in the light of country-specific conditions.

I that from the U.N. Apparently, they've got agenda 21 online.

What I quoted above is a straighforward commitment on the behalf of the U.N. to recommitsocialism's fatal conceit. Socialism just doesn't work, and they went ahead and proved it. No central planner can give us better information than a free market price, period. It doesn't matter if you are looking at growing an economy or conserving resources. There is no incentive like a profit to conserve a resource or recycle, so if the government is subsidizing it or making competing products more expensive, you can bet they are hiding wasted resources (and sources of pollution-many of these green initiatives aren't earth friendly at all).

So, the socialist has changed his tune. No longer does he claim to be able to do better, rather he claims any system more successful than his is unsustainable, and therefore a threat to humanity. This global managerial class doesn't care about small farms, quality food. They care about keeping and expanding their parasitical lifestyle. They are literally saying prices are important signals; let's change them so everybody gets erroneous information! I know they imply they somehow know the appropriate information, but the old socialists already killed untold numbers of people proving this approach is wrong. These new socialists are embracing the fatality; this is zombie socialism fully realized, where an unhealthy society is the goal- makes it easier for the parasites to feed.