Edited: November 18, 2022
This statement I wrote as a press release in 2006 (see end of post) relates to the United Nations plan Agenda 21, but I think I was only barely aware of it at the time. If there is only one clear point to make about Agenda 21, reading it will tell you that the United Nations laid out a plan for total re-organization of the world in the 21st century, and that’s basically where governments get their “ideas”.
When we don’t know any better, we tend to blame only local interest groups, as if there is some logical normal and natural reason for imposing total control over society. That’s just not reality. Even local groups and local governments get their marching orders and their religious dogma from the U.N. The dogma is “Sustainable Development“.
Here is an example of a group with a presence in Toronto, which promotes environmentalist policies: ICLEI Canada, “Local Governments for Sustainability”. And all of this will sound familiar if you review Agenda 21:
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of local governments and national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development…
Who funds ICLEI?
ICLEI is supported by core and project funders and by our host cities. Some of our major project funders include the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canadian International Development Agency, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), European Commission, German Environmental Foundation, and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
ICLEI builds and fosters alliances and partnerships that further our goals and better support our Members. We have a wide range of international and regional partners that collaborate on our programs and campaigns, including national governments, academic institutions, local project-specific partners such as foundations and non-governmental organizations, and dozens of national, regional, and international associations of local governments.
In other words, government policy is determined internationally by foundations and councils (i.e., soviets). By a special class, in other words, groups in which there is a pre-determined consensus. And, oh yes, the funding comes from YOU the tax-payer and the private foundations who call the shots. But this group commits to policies from their club, not to any ideas YOU might have unless you are in their club. The club includes both governments and non-governmental organizations.
Here is another example (http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/LRO/RegistrationPublic.nsf/vwByRegNum/OL0312-20060907140927?OpenDocument) (listed at the Integrity Commissioner’s website) of a Toronto lobbyist group, “Federation of Ontario Naturalists”, representing “Ontario Nature”.
What is this group advocating?
- “We are actively advocating the provincial government to pass legislation to direct conservation-based land use planning in advance of development allocations in the northern boreal region. [Comment: They have have started to “protect” the forests from humans in Southern Ontario so they have to rope off (figuratively) the North now.]“
- “Bill 150 – Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 [Tyranny Act, 2009, unbelievable]”
- “Regulations under the Endangered Species Act (we are advocating effective implementation of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act to ensure that species at risk and their habitats are protected) The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. [Comment: Human beings are supposed to be in their eyes a less important species, so I think we’re definitely endangered based on what these groups are advocating.]“
- “We are advocating for smart growth policies that create compact, transit supportive communities [how “compact” do you want your town to be?] and protect urban green space. We are advocating for a connected natural heritage system throughout southern and eastern Ontario south of the Canadian shield. We are advocating that the Ministry of Education implement the recommendations of the Bondar report with particular emphasis on experiential and outdoor education [Comment: “education” – indoctrination – is spelled out repeatedly in Agenda 21]. We are advocating the adoption and support of an Alternative Land Use Services program across Ontario We are working on the Mining Act review.”
- “Northern Boreal Protection Act“
- “. . . We will also be focusing on promoting enforcement of existing policies [Comment: the use of force] designed to protect natural heritage and advising government of new policies needed to protect natural heritage.”
Ontario Nature receives substantial funding from government agencies. In other words, taxpayers have paid to fund this group whether or not they agree with its goals:
— Environment Canada, 13,500;
— Heritage Canada, 30,223;
— Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 14,276;
— Ontario Ministry of Culture – Ontario Media Development Corporation, 12,500
You can get a picture of an interconnected web from all this. As far as “private funding of $750 or more”, the Ivey Foundation in Toronto is listed:
Since 1947 the Foundation has made grants totalling $67.8 million.
“Ontario Nature” is the World Wildlife Fund:
Just another example: $42,900 in 2005 went to the Ontario College of Family Physicians:
To educate doctors, the general public, and Ontario policymakers on the health effects of urban sprawl.
Another of the Ivey Foundation’s recipients – pulling one at random – is the Neptis Foundation:
Neptis believes that by enriching public knowledge of regional urbanism, it can exert a constructive and creative influence on the course of debate and decisions on regional management.
Neptis initiates, supports, and popularizes expert nonpartisan research and opinion on urban regions and their futures by leading academics and other researchers. Neptis serves as a resource to governments, the private sector, practitioners, students, and the public generally. It regards this activity as a kind of informational activism.
Neptis seeks to fill voids in regional knowledge, not to duplicate the work of government. It aims to bring scholarly research to public policy formation, and to dissolve boundaries between disciplines– both in research and in policy-making
These groups – these are the ones who do the policy making! Not individuals through democratic representation as citizens. But rather well-funded lobbyists and research institutions, privately and tax-funded. These do the policy-making. Not us. We were not involved in these decisions. This is rule by “experts” who know what they want, and the rest of us, including our children, will be subject to their “education” if we just go along, which is what we do.
From 2006 (most links out of date), I wrote the following press release for the Ontario Libertarian Party:
Libertarian Party Rejects ‘Smart Growth’ as a Dumb Idea
July 12, 2006 – The Ontario government’s Places to Grow Act became law in 2005 and its Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (http://www.pir.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/4/FPLAN-ENG-WEB-ALL.pdf?N_ID=4?N_ID=4) subtitled “Places to Grow: Better Choices, Brighter Future” was released on June 16, 2006.
The Libertarian Party is the “Party of Choice,” and as such, we reject this dictatorial power grab that seeks to impose “better choices” on individuals.
This plan represents even greater centralization of government planning, in which the people who force decisions on Ontarians are even further away from real life.
This plan is a continuation of other policies which attempt to obliterate personal property rights in Ontario, such as the Greenbelt Act which prohibits development within designated areas. Of course there is no mention of the concept of “property rights” in either the Places to Grow Act or the Growth Plan.
The preamble to the act states that “planning must occur in a rational and strategic way”. However, governments and central committees are not capable of rationally planning what is best for millions of individuals. Whereas the act elevates arbitrary power to the level of “rational”, the process of individuals expressing their personal choices through the free market is smeared by implication as irrational.
The province wants to plan how big our houses are, how much land is allotted to each unit, and where houses are in relation to businesses. The province also wants to establish minimum population densities.
The plan describes targets for intensification (p. 14-17): “All municipalities will develop and implement through their official plans and other supporting documents, a strategy and policies to phase in and achieve intensification and the intensification target.” The intensification targets (p. 16) are: 400 residents and jobs per hectare for urban growth centres in Toronto, 200 for urban growth centres in municipalities such as Brampton, and 150 for urban growth centres in municipalities such as Barrie.
The purpose of “urban growth centres” and “intensification corridors” is to move people away from the country and pack them into the city where they can be more easily ruled.
Individuals should decide the best use of land based on their needs. The government should not be deciding whether it is best for a family to live in a one-bedroom condominium or on a farm. Government planning also squelches innovation, but the free market allows for innovation and choice with respect to housing styles.
The plan complains (p. 8 ) that “attractive and efficient public transit is difficult to introduce into sprawling communities, and this limits our ability to respond effectively to growing traffic congestion issues.” In other words, the government wants to plan the living arrangements of residents in order to better serve transit systems rather than let transit systems develop to serve individual choice.
As the Star reports in its discussion of the Growth Plan, 400 people and jobs per hectare is “the minimum number of people required to support a subway”. In other words, the government thinks we exist to support subways. Packing people like sardines into intensification zones is all about making problem-solving more convenient for central authorities.
The plan (p. 8 ) admits that, “decades of neglect and lack of sufficient investment have resulted in the current infrastructure deficit. Tens of billions of dollars beyond current levels of investment will be required before the situation is back in balance.” This admission of government failure under various ruling parties raises the question of why we trust big government to manage anything. But here
they go, tightening their grip, asserting more control in the face of failure, and planning in detail the lives of over 11 million people for the next 25 years.
The plan attacks “sprawl” (p.8), which is a pejorative term for “suburbanization”. Suburbanization is not for everyone, but it has made it possible for huge numbers of people to own their homes and accumulate capital, while raising their children away from the stress and noise of the ‘high density’ city.
The plan attacks individual mobility (p. 25) by requiring municipalities to implement policies that “increase the modal share of alternatives to the automobile.” That means the government will try to make you walk more, cycle more, use transit more and use your automobile less. But the pros and cons of all these modes of travel should be decided by individuals free of coercion.
Scattered throughout the plan are the fears used to justify violations of individual rights – fear of consumption of agricultural lands and other natural resources, fear of the loss of “employment lands”, and fear of urban sprawl (p.8). The implication is that forcing solutions to these supposed threats is the best way to deal with them.
The plan sets in stone the so-called “Culture of Conservation” (p. 30, 32) or as we might more accurately call it, the “Culture of Deprivation“. It’s the people-as-pets way of thinking, and we are so sick of it. The complaints about human beings come thick and fast: We use too much water. We use too much energy. We produce too much waste. We use too much land. According to this belief system, only the government knows what is “sustainable”.
Contrary to their false assertions about sustainability, depriving human beings of freedom is not sustainable. Also, freedom is the only sustainable method for deciding how to deal with resources. The free market is one of the most important means we can use to work cooperatively with others to resolve concerns. All of these resource problems are everyday human problems, and are best managed by each individual who knows his/her own situation better than anyone else. That’s why each individual needs to be empowered with liberty and a system that properly protects their rights.
For residents to achieve the homes and neighborhoods they want, we need market-oriented and consumer-oriented planning. In other words, we need people deciding their own futures within a framework that also protects the legitimate rights of others they interact with.
The Libertarian Party rejects the whole concept of a central authority planning peoples’ lives and regulating the use of their property. Please register your disagreement with the Ontario government’s Growth Plan by supporting the Libertarian Party.
1. More of us, living better Toronto Star, June 16/06
3. Places to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 (http://www.pir.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/4/FPLAN-ENG-WEB-ALL.pdf?N_ID=4?N_ID=4) and main page.
4. Market-oriented Approaches to Growth: Outsmarting Sprawl’s Impacts by Samuel Stanley, Director of Urban and Land Use Policy, Reason Foundation
5. Suburban thrall: Montreal’s expansion strategy will keep its economy competitive by Wendell Cox, Montreal Economic Institute. Explains the economic consequences of land rationing.
6. Myths about Urban Growth and the Toronto “Greenbelt” (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/publication_details.aspx?pubID=3022) by Wendell Cox, Fraser Institute. Discusses how the Greenbelt conflicts with other government priorities such as affordable housing and obesity. (PDF full report)
May 31st, 2009