the RULE
Green political governance is imminently needed, possibly a Green World government, whether or whether not such a government would be successful in normally acceptable economic terms. This is because existing governments are locked into policies promoting growth in almost every sphere – a growth which the ecology of the Earth can ill afford. Nobody could realistically say that the climate shift, already in so much evidence, could be reversed without a major world-wide reversal of industrial and economic growth patterns.
Atheistic governments have functioned in the past, albeit, mostly extremely morally corrupt ones, with the possible exception of Fidel Castro and a few other South American leaders. But let us not forget the unity and determination with which the Stalinist Russians fought off the better equipped Nazi invaders during World War Two. An Earthist agenda, however, would not propose that any enforced control of religious freedom should be put in place in order to unify a population. An Earthist political approach would be much closer to Gandiism than Marxist/Leninism.
Some proposed Earthist policies might be:
(a) Impose a super tax on all newly manufactured items and commodities offset by great financial incentives to repair all serviceable goods, huge tax-breaks on all product parts and service materials, massive savings for all consumers on un-packaged or eco-packaged personal products and foodstuffs etc.
(b) A total ban on religious instruction in schools and the withdrawal of funding for all single faith schools.
(c) The criminalization of “religionism” as understood in the same way as “racism” or “sexism”. For example, a person claiming to be a Christian would break the law if he or she discriminated against or made religious remarks against a Muslim (or visa versa). Obviously some of the religious hate so heiniously spouted in recent times would carry a very heavy penalty indeed
(d) The Nationalisation of all land and buildings. Homes, farms, offices etc could be available on very long leases so lack of total ownership would make little difference to most people. Individual families, however, would no longer be able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and power through generations of land and property ownership.
(e) Levy of much greater charges on agro-chemicals used by farmers and allowance of any necessary assistance to organic producers that would be required to make organic food affordable by all.
(f) The setting up of state sponsored redistribution centres for all unwanted and usable items.There would be a wharehouse in every neighborhood to take your unwanted items and collect something someone else no longer had a use for. This would allow for a massive reduction in landfill and in the incineration of “rubbish”.
(g) To make some financial manipulation of the natural therapy services sector in order to make natural healthcare available and affordable by all. This could greatly reduce sickness, hospitalization and the dependence on medications.This policy could also create massive new training and employment possibilities in this sector.
(h) Much higher taxation on all fossil fuels especially petrol and diesel. This would partly pay for a totally free public transport system.
(i) Much longer paid holidays for all workers, huge increases on aviation taxes, massive incentives for travel companies operating large sailing ships offering eco-friendly world travel.
(j) A ceiling put on the ratio between the highest and lowest earners. The maximum difference could be something like 1:20 (the higher earner getting 20 times more per hour than the lowest) Currently there is no limit and some people can earn thousands of times more per hour than others.
(k) A legally binding restriction on family size implemented to limit the number of offspring each couple are permitted to produce to two or three. Only Human populations are threatening the balance of our planet so curbing or reducing them will eventually become an absolute necessity.
(l) An Earthist agenda would encourage more people to live in Co-Housing settlements where smaller families and individuals can live closely together, often sharing child-care duties and having the void filled which has been left by the loss of the large and now obsolete extended-family lifestyles of our forebears.