Censorship at Moyers and Company

Bill Moyers' website does not show that a comment is pending (but a spam comment made at the same time as mine, more than two hours ago now, was removed within about 35 minutes or less). Disqus lists my comment as 'pending'.

My comment:
And all this is important because... a relatively small group of people (members of Congress) decides how to spend public funds. If each person had control of a small but equal fraction of the total public funds budget and were required to spend as they choose but only in support of programs that, say, 60% of the people deem to be a valuable contribution to the public good, then the question of who is elected to Congress will become a much smaller concern. (Congress as an institution would take on an advisory role if spending decisions and decisions about how much pollution to allow and how rapidly natural resources should be depleted were made by the people at large.)

As our civilization moves closer toward collapse (as we continue to deplete resources faster than we are learning to do without, and as the quality of civil society continues to erode here and abroad), people will have less and less free time and attention to devote to the latest investigation of systemic corruption and regulatory capture. (Industries that benefit from public spending will have more and more latitude within which to influence the regulatory and funding apparatus of government.

Are we ready for a paradigm shift yet?

What do we need to know that news media are not telling us?
Systemic flaws are not reported

Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere

Pro-Russian Separatists Block Access to MH17 Crash Site - Comment deleted

Flight MH17 report on NPR

I suggested that the nation-state had outlived its usefulness. Someone shot back that a global government would necessarily be more oppressive.

If someone replies to my comment, I should be able to answer that reply. Yet this was deleted by NPR...

Throughout human history, the scale of human organization, including the geographical extent of governments, has reflected the distance across which people could easily communicate and travel within a few days or a week or so. The test of whether a government operates within appropriate limits while also carrying out the responsibilities of an effective government depends not on its size so much as on whether it and the people who give it material support and allegiance recognize appropriate limits to its power... and also whether there is recognition of the full extent of its basic responsibilities; that is, do the people recognize the areas where government must act.

I think that governments ought not initiate force or coercion against peaceful people engaged in private action in private spaces. We do not have authority as individuals to dictate private behavior of others. We cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government. When citizens recognize this limit to government authority, we will refrain from voting for politicians who would violate this basic principle. We will not give allegiance to governments that initiate force or coercion against peaceful people. It is this principle, rather than an arbitrary limit to the scale of organization, that will protect us from oppressive governments. (I have heard of cases where the federal government has arrested and prosecuted law enforcement officers who violated the rights of citizens. The size of the government does not prevent it from doing the wrong thing, nor does it ensure that it will do the right thing. The vigilance and engagement of the people is what does that.)

Governments can regulate public behavior. Governments can require that those who cause problems for others pay some compensation to those who are harmed. In the case of putting pollution or taking natural resources in pursuit of profit, the detrimental impact is felt by all. Payment can be required as compensation for the lost opportunity resulting from that taking or adverse impact. (If there will be overall limits imposed, then, to the extent that one actor takes some of the available resources or puts some fraction of the total amount of pollution to be allowed, others will have to refrain from taking, so as to keep overall impacts within the agreed-upon limits. So, any taking of resources or putting of pollution by one actor necessarily diminishes opportunities for others to do likewise. Payments made by industries when they take or degrade natural wealth could be shared equally among all the world's people. The idea that natural wealth is to be shared among all people would be manifest in reality. The fee proceeds would be a monetary representation of the value of natural wealth.)

Governments violate moral principle when they initiate force or coercion

A sustainable and just civilization requires that we use our moral sense

Nation-state paradigm has outlived its usefulness

Another post removed from NPR

Ukraine Accuses Rebels of Destroying Evidence at MH17 Crash Site

This is all so very sad for the families involved. Such a horrible way for these lives to be brought to an end. It is just too sad.

We should know by now, I think, that the nation-state paradigm has outlived its usefulness. When will we call for systems of global governance?

If we seek a democratic society wherein natural wealth is shared equally and environmental impacts are held within limits that most people feel are acceptable, it might look something like what is outlined here:

Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere

Biological Model for Politics and Economics (shorter version)

Unexplained deletion of comments at NPR - Moderating policy could be more transparent

Stress takes a toll on health and family by Richard Knox and Patti Neighmond 

 My comment below was deleted, along with a reply I put in the thread it started.

 Environmentalists and concerned citizens have complained that we are allowing a new class of neuroactive pesticides to be widely used and it is causing collapse of bee populations in many parts of the world. The industry representatives point out that the bees have mites attacking them and point to this fact as evidence that their products are not to blame. In fact, bees have always had to contend with the stress of mite infestations. If they now have to deal with mites and the added stress of neonicotinoids, the combined effect may be more than they are able to deal with.

 Human beings have various stressors. Several types were mentioned in this story. When we introduce unnatural stress into this mix, the combined effect may cause breakdown. The fact that people have no ready access to a share of natural wealth is a source of stress. It means that, absent gainful employment, they can face the prospect of becoming destitute. 

Whether people have access to a paying job can depend largely on macroeconomic conditions. Not something people have any control over. Having no control or autonomy is stressful. Many people in the world live now in abject poverty. This is most certainly an unnatural condition. (There can be acute shortages in nature, depending on season, weather and localized disasters such as a flood or drought. But chronic debilitating poverty is something belonging to civilization. Most specifically, modern civilization. (In the past, as economies slowed or civilizations collapsed, people could move elsewhere to find opportunities, to seek out better living conditions. Now the systems are linked through global networks. When one area experiences a bust or collapse, other areas will be affected. And there is no wilderness that people can flee to as the system turns to chaos.) 

 If we were to share natural wealth equally, then the stress of unemployment would be substantially reduced, as would the stress of being in a relatively low-paying job. People would not face the prospect of becoming destitute if they lose their job. They would still have some spending power, no matter their employment status. And, since everyone would receive their natural wealth stipend without any need to demonstrate hardship, the stress that some people feel when they are put in a position of asking for a handout would not arise. Equal sharing of natural wealth would transform society in ways we can only begin to imagine. 

Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability