The Fair Start Movement begins simply with the fact that wealth in the world today was made through unsustainable and inequitable growth, at cost to children’s rights, in what some call the #famscam.
In the scheme, nations illegally evaded their obligation to only bring children into birth and development conditions compliant with children’s rights and with the measurable political equity from which legitimate governance derives.
They chose a form of unsustainable reproductive autonomy that was akin to the racist separate but equal scams, but one which will kill far more persons. Governments said we were equal and then ensured some children had nothing and others everything under the lie that parental autonomy could exist outside of political equity.
The many funders that framed and defined social justice over the last several decades never created real value in their vast wealth, relative to an objective standard like a healthy climate. Instead they first used inequitable family planning that benefitted their own families, ensuring for others dismal standards for child development and education, thereby violating their own professed values (like animal protection and bio-diversity) by treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens.
For years activists with Fair Start – in their prior employments – were urged by vegan investor-funders to focus on food reforms, the benefits of which – for animals and humans – were being undone by money-making growth.
The results were a catastrophic increase in overall demand and emissions.
The investor-funder’s kids are now thriving. More vulnerable children are now dying from the increased heat, disease, flooding, and fires.
They did this while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies where the average vote was actually being diluted to uselessness. A system of fundamental entitlements likely to kill millions of innocent persons, and which could instead have achieved better outcomes by actually investing in children, is generally considered a failure.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
If you are worried about Trump and Musk as threats to democracy, ask yourself what your company was doing – at the most basic level of measurably empowering and freeing children as they entered the world – to actually protect democracy.
What in your company’s cost/benefit analysis covered the costs of children only being born into conditions consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention, the basis for human rights and democracy? Or did your company, like Trump and Musk, assume those kids were valuable economic inputs in your growth model?
Were you quietly enjoying growth-based investments that exponentially undid climate and animal protection reforms, and enriched those you criticize? Did your company make money on vegan food investments relying on growth, and massive wealth differentials for black and white kids, that did more harm than good?
We don’t get to justice through injustice, and punching down on infants and animals with zero actual birth equity protections.
Hypocritical companies, fake charities and nepotistic foundations that did nothing to ensure fair starts in life for all kids, which means measurable equity or effective shares in one’s democracy, created Trump and Musk at the most basic level.
Fair Start begins simply with the fact that wealth in the world today was made through growth and at cost to children’s rights because nations illegally evaded their obligation to only bring children into conditions compliant with those rights.
That standard – a demand for family planning resources to ensure children’s rights, which is the most basic standard for who our species should be – is how we can move that same wealth to try to fix the problem.
Many entities in those nations most responsible for the climate crisis are using the same fraudulent impact assessment and reporting standards, ignoring how children entering the world undid sustainable development impacts, that drove the crisis in order to hide their liability or the death of millions.
The rule: All climate reparations must be based on measurable collective self-determination. There are no values outside of that system, given climatological impacts on infants. We find and out those using any other standard, and hold them fully accountable. Government and those they entitle to wealth cannot redefine “harm” to avoid liability for the deaths of millions.
Language matters, and we cannot be free or contextually self-determining without communications that reflect or most fundamental obligations to others.
If we want to protect democracy our companies have to build it through the creation of actual power relations by starting at birth and, in the name of intergenerational justice, targeting key bad actors who lied about impacts while making their money at cost to children and animals.
They owe that money because they used fraud and unfair competition, omitting deadly costs in their public impact statements, in order to make it.
In the middle of the Twentieth Century world leaders evaded future children’s interests and political equity as a basis for reproductive rights, mostly likely because it would have required heavy investments in racially equitable birth, development, and emancipatory conditions.
Leaders on the left and the right conflated by defining power very narrowly – as the violence of the state, rather than any form of human influence, so one would be free to terminate pregnancies, only to now die in a heat wave because one had no influence over climate policy, and could not afford air conditioning.
The lack of investment directly enabled catastrophic growth and massive inequality, which measurably did more harm than subsequent philanthropic efforts, all tainted by the desire to exploit the growth, did good because the outcomes today involve projections of millions dying in the climate crisis.
We know that this did more harm than good because evading children’s interests brought them into conditions that not only violated their rights, but thereby degraded – through things like extreme heat – the capacity of their ecologies to support what all children need. That inequitable growth simultaneously disenfranchised the average voter, seeding vast political inequity and blocking their ability to halt what was unfolding.
There is no way to assess value in the world that would not be measured relative to basic infant health and life prospects, including self-determination, because infant health and development is the objective basis through which humans experience all value, and the fundamental baseline for unifying values like health, equity, democracy, etc.
It is the minimum measure, or floor, for political legitimacy.
Much of the philanthropy we see today, which avoids discussion of how inequitable growth easily reversed infant development outcomes, does more to hide this problem than fix it. The omission of information on child entry conditions hides liability – and rights to self-defensive reparations – for deadly climate harm to millions of children of color who are born with a tiny fraction of the wealth of white funders’ kids.
Humans need law primarily to protect the vulnerable amongst us, so there is no law, or obligation to do what others say, in a system that starts with punching down on the most vulnerable. And if our oppression comes in our creation through a status quo that does not ensure minimum levels of welfare for kids at entry, it then seems impossible to see and remove without an objective touchstone – like offset, or zero, baselines –that change the status quo.
The climate crisis creates a serious problem for anyone claiming to do good public interest work. What’s public interest about a system that will result in the deaths of millions of innocents as heat waves grow?
Those funding public interest work – the wealthy families at the beginning – were not using a system that ensured their wealth reflected true value, relative to an objective standard like a healthy climate.
Instead they first used poor family planning to create their own audiences and artificial demand by ensuring dismal standards for child development and education, violating children’s rights and treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens. They did this while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies, while the average vote was actually being diluted by inequitable growth to uselessness. A system of fundamental entitlements likely to kill millions of innocent persons, one that could instead have achieved better outcomes by actually investing in children, is generally considered a failure.
Wealthy funders in the U.S., for decades, used a clever sleight of hand to benefit while forcing costs on others in ways that would ensure the crisis. They objectified the problems they seemed to be fixing, treating things like one’s share equity in democracy as “population,” a thing outside of subject-subject relations of a “we the people.” Note that Fair Start still uses the word in some areas as the only means of having audiences link from what they were taught to our work, though this could wane.
They started by assuming entitlements in ways that benefitted themselves at deadly cost to others. Fair Start activists themselves had made similar assumptions, about the authority that officials like judges claimed, in the former employments these activists held. In fact judges, and all officials, like those private citizens claiming to own wealth, must derive their authority back to actually empower those constituents they claim to represent.
Where else would their authority derive from?
Fair Start activist have had to deal with many seeking to sabotage our work, including fundraisers who made a lot of money making those false assumptions and urging us to do the same in order to get funding. She urged us to seek as charity what is owed as reparations – in violation of the dignity of human rights, and to not criticize the funders from whom she wanted business, even when they were making false claims about their impacts.
Alternatively, we’ve dealt with grassroots activists who insisted on having no obligations to empower even their own future children, even when doing so was necessary to live consistent in their impact claims and activism, and to be accountable for promises made to vulnerable communities.
That thinking, from philanthropists and activists alike – not caring about the future and the most vulnerable – is what fundamentally caused the crisis.
We can’t get to justice, legitimacy and obligation to follow the law, from injustice.
How did that system fail?
World leaders had privatized freedom in the birth-creation of political relations after 1948 by conflating the act of having and not having children under a singular umbrella of autonomy, rather than treating the former as requiring political equity for the child. This led to measuring / assessing and reporting based on standards meant to take oneself out of one’s birth and development context, ensuring children of color were treated as deserving less and placing them at increased risk.
At bottom, leaders used family law to slowly subvert all other civil rights reforms, training us to think of ourselves / the body out of context. If you ask anyone claiming to do good to account for children having entered the world, and entering now, this constant undoing relative to children’s rights can be shown.
We are building the Fair Start Movement to watchdog what has happened and who should be held accountable. Many are hiding birthright white supremacy and massive death debt with a fraudulent assessment and reporting standard that takes the self out of positionality and creation context because to talk about ourselves relative to children entering the world will show our reproductive rights systems assume children of color are worth significantly less and are dying in growing numbers.
Fair Start activists, in their work with nonprofits, assisted in creating a fantasy world of positive impact – through things like the promotion of vegan brands – that never existed if one were to account for children entering the world. This fantasy world allowed the slow conversion of democratic relations into the commercial ones we see today, often through a shell game that used concepts – like an abstracted version of animal liberation undone every day by growth – designed to hide positionality.
How do we watchdog?
We use the Tell The Truth and Act Campaign, in which we urge all to admit our work is being undone every day as children enter the world in conditions that violate their rights, and that violating children’s overriding birthrights to political equity has done more harm to our missions – all of our missions – than we have done good.
We ask all to admit their work was based on a separate but equal system of family entitlements that subverted the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements. And we then require contextualized impact claims, with neutral fact checking. We focus on the combined suffering of infants and animals, and specific disclosures contrasting impact claims with children entering the world without equitizing rights, beneath the line of their entitlements.
We ask: How much was good was undone by inequity, how far were the ecological baselines degraded, and how disenfranchised were the actual voices? That is the measure for what is owed under equity reparations, and if we take our values seriously we will use them to form subject-level relations with others as equally empowered, not just subject-object relations that derive from the failure of reproductive rights ignoring children’s rights.
Certainly, they have already received the benefits.
If they do not they are frauds, willing to benefit at deadly cost to others, and they deserve the same level of protection as they choose to give. Where else would any obligation to them come from?
Legally, those benefitting at deadly cost can be held accountable because nations cannot create their own standards for what constitutes harm in order to hide liability.
Under those narrow conceptions legal systems neither had the capacity to benefit animals, nor be representative of their constituents. Under the preemptive standard discussed in the articles below, we have a right to the truth about their on-balance impacts, and what they might owe to truly do what they got credit for claiming to do.
Fact: When impacts are correctly measured, not prioritizing a measurably fair start in life for all children did exponentially more harm to most stated missions of organizations than those organizations did good. In many cases they will have spent more on lavish travel and events, or other incidentals, than actually furthering their mission.
We can ensure the needed resources to save lives by using the extreme wealth in the world today made at cost to others to fund reparative justice, because that wealth was made by not paying the costs of avoiding climate, autocratic and other harms to future generations. The legitimate and reparative standard – being fair – will save millions of lives, and trillions of dollars. However there are entities now funding charities, media, politicians and academics who silo social justice issues away from birth equity, and use omissive and fraudulent messaging that hides their liability and the entitlement systems ensuring the death of millions as the climate crisis accelerates.
We can overcome the fraudulent withholding of reparations, withholding that uses a historically racist and unsustainable model – not benchmarked to actual harm – that illegally bypasses children’s rights as the basis for reproductive rights and intergenerational justice. This is an arbitrary model, a limited view of reproductive autonomy that simply assumes children of color are worth less in terms of the birth and development conditions they deserve. That assumption will now condemn millions of children, mostly of color, to death as the climate crisis intensifies.
Fair Start outs those using the fraudulent standard, which is inherently omissive, by simply asking targets to account for the entry of children into the world relative to things like the Children’s Convention when making impact claims and to adjust their claims accordingly.
The results are often shocking, with many public interest organizations having spent more on lavish travel, events and other performative things than on furthering their mission. Fair Start then assists communities impacted by the fraud to seek clawback reparations. We can focus on the specific harm from the fraud itself as a trimtab lever, and linguistic model of admission and reconciliation, to create larger systemic change and the physical constituting of legitimate relations through accurate language of obligation and the changes in behavior that follow it.
The funds from this process can drive changes in the existing sexual health and reproductive rights field, which has failed, changes that would treat mothers and infants as the priority class among vulnerable entities under existing child welfare / civil rights laws.
Without accurate language obligation is not possible.
An analogy?
All life occurs on a floor defined largely by the conditions in which we are born and raised. That floor is falling apart, and some want to keep going while others fall through. These free riders threaten us all. Why? It is physically impossible for any of us to be relatively self-determining – to be free, if we cannot ask for truth and then assure that persons are created, developed and emancipated in ways that offset equally their capacity to influence political systems, relative to a neutral position or objective standard for evaluation.
Those entering the world are either not empowered, or we all have no choice but to be subjected to their power and influence – including the degradation of the environment around us.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
What the United Nations calls greenwashing begins as a much more deadly form of entitlement fraud. Wealthy families are literally using wealth made at deadly cost to the values they claimed to be protecting to drown out the voices of the most vulnerable.
To avoid black birth equity, the mostly white families that designed the near-universal reproductive rights regime bypassed equity entirely when defining reproductive autonomy, such that one can only use a thin form of autonomy to terminate their pregnancy, only to then die in a white-wealth-driven heatwave months later because they cannot afford air conditioning.
This move, of hiding the diminution of equity, relied on a sleight of hand: Defining freedom from power around the authority of the state to use violence, rather than broader definitions that would have captured all entitlements, like those between child and child-maker. The conceptions relied on almost all white and male theorists who abstracted far away from their own birth positionality, leaving us with abstract theories of liberation that would enable a climate crisis deadly to mostly children of color.
Crucially,Robert Nozick’s use of the fallacies described in this letter misdirected liberal political theory
Hans Kelsen theorized of a norm from which all others derived, but never included ecosocial, birth-based share equity in one’s democracy as the obvious most basic ought behind his positivist vision of law.
John Finnis envisions a list of natural rights, which does not include birth equity, and certainly not as foundational.
Cass Sunsteinchallenged common views on baselines, but never asks which generational, racial, national etc. position one should be in while assessing the idea of baselines, a question that seems determinative of millions of lives at risk as temperatures soar.
Contrast with these the work of Dr. Gabirel Bubu Ncha on early democratic women’s circles. WhileJoel Feinberg certainly envisioned every child’s right to an open future, and David DeGrazia comes very close to fairness in creation at the end of Creation Ethics, Ncha’s work on collective planning allows would-be parents to better ensure it.
These theories, minus the last two, are based on the misconception of existence without full positionality, and the abstraction of morality away from the creation of relations at birth. This thinking created decoys, like performative civil rights in employment or voting, masking birth inequity that would allow white wealth built on a lie of unsustainable growth. The theorists generally stopped short of requiring governance by free and equal persons because they did not derive an obligation to follow laws back to the measurable empowerment of subjects as constituents. They all seemed to focus on what the rules should be, not the emancipation or capacity to be part of a rule-making process, probably because they assumed capacity that given their positionality.
These families and their concentrations of wealth and power have not created value. Instead, they first used unsustainable family planning to create their own growing audiences and artificial demand by ensuring dismal standards for child development and education, treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies where the average vote was being diluted to uselessness.
A legal impossibility.
Law is different from other disciplines because it norms can be coerced, and firstly on the idea that subjects are included as equals and thus made constituents. Constitutionalism, at bottom, premises obligation to follow the law on actual inclusion and empowerment.
Again, given the climate harm to future generations, and our obligations to repair the harm, it would be physically impossible to constitute accurately obligatory relations – legal / obligatory relations – at the most basic level without some sort of truth and reconciliation process around the admission and inversion of empowering future generations more than those at the heights of our economic and political hierarchies. Without fair starts in life, there is no capacity to form organizations capable of representative governance, via the measurable self-determination of its constituents.
Where else would the empowering relations come from? If defunding the police makes sense, it’s at least because our legal systems have never included constituents with measurable equity in a way that makes them capable of producing actual representatives, and laws – including property entitlements – that accurately represent the will of those subject to them.
How to see the fraud?
The claims these families make and fund are easily falsifiable, as are the claims of the funders backing decoy nonprofits that silo social justice into various downstream issues in order to hide upstream entitlement and reparations fraud, using a false premise to benefit from a system that undoes the good one seems to do. Focusing downstream, rather than on things like what Dr. Breeze Harper called the primacy of Black Birth Equity, avoids civil rights that actually account for the creation of power disparities in birth, development, and emancipation.
What we think of today as procreative or reproductive autonomy was nothing more than cover for not disturbing mostly white birth privilege and positionality. It was the skin of freedom, not the body. Here are some questions one can ask to identify the fraud:
If the claimant valued some outcome, who will cover the child inequity and entry costs to that outcome – growth undoing climate mitigation, for example – and evade more of it? Is the claimant doing more harm than good by ignoring entry without equity? Do they start with enabling the powerful over the vulnerable? Did the claimant spend more on undoing their mission than furthering it? What formula do they use to assess damages in climate, civil rights, environmental justice, etc. cases? How do they define the term power in the context of being free from power? Who is their intended audience?
This is a constitutive discourse. Again, this is not about population. It’s about lies and omissions to gain power by exploiting positionality. A concrete goal for a better future might entail functional constitutional conventions, where we can be self-determining rather than determined by others, and in concrete and measurable ways.
Animal rights, law and policy as the most falsifiable examples of reparations fraud on almost a dozen levels, but also the standard for the highest level of clawback payments.
If one factors in children entering the world in inequity, the claims of success and impact made by most animal protection organizations are being undone daily. And they are false, with more vastly animals suffering and dying through the creation of their relations with humans than these organizations save.
For example, many of the funders behind animal protections have been pushing what is a social justice movement for the most vulnerable, instead towardtowards investments in growth-based vegan food markets that do more harm to animals – by the numbers – than these funders and their leachy children do good.Many lawyers ostensibly working on behalf of animals made impact claims in this area that were easily being undone, every day, by inequity. Some call this the #demandscam, pretending to with one hand create value you undo with the other, and in a way that benefits the scammer at cost to others. In this case not only did growth do more harm to animals that food reforms did good, but that growth was replacing a chance for democratic relations with commercial ones via low investments in children, while concealing the death debt investors already owed for climate deaths.
FSM members were actually told, by a leading animal law professor who was accustomed to not having to link legal institutions to the measurable empowerment of their constituents, that fair start reforms were natural rather than positive law, and that one could work to save animals through food reforms while not altering the underlying retrodictive rights that would – each day – undo any gains from food reforms.
Given that animal liberation is the highest form of environmentalism (treating ecologies as the homes of entities who have relations, families, and lives of their own rather than a human resource) the cooptation of animal liberation is horrific. The ideal requires equitable human and nonhumans relations. Instead it is funded towardtowards flashy, downstream, low-impact, micro-level campaigns and victories that get easily undone on a macro level.
It is, by the numbers, the greatest example of “winner take all” greenwashing possible. Funders, and the performative advocates who take their money, decoy us all away from seeing animal law, rights and policy as the most demanding standard for who humans should become, ethically, because they would rather use an illegitimate system to improve their positionality and image than do the work of legitimating the system around liberation of humans and nonhumans.
Humans are animals. Seeing us as such moves us away from anthrocentric thinking that ensured the climate crisis, and will kill millions. So, what we refer to as animal rights and law focus on nonhumans not because of their species, but because of their unique vulnerability. Animal law is not merely law that refers to animals. Animal law would have to start with a capacity to actually protect nonhumans, especially in the creation of their relations with future humans who will determine much about their lives.Animal law in the best sense starts with inclusive birth and child welfare policies that create empathetic relations capable of benefitting animals.
So animal rights, law and policy, if we want to protect nonhumans, is just a system of obligation oriented around the most vulnerable, the most demanding form of law and justice. That system has to have the capacity to actually benefit the beneficiaries, not just pretend to. What does pretending to benefit animals look like? Look at most of the micro victories for animal rights and personhood claimed by organizations over the last few decades, and contrast those with the impacts of growth on animals, and the reality, at a macro level, of embedded nonhuman propertyhood in our archaic reproductive rights regimes. Animal rights in the comprehensive sense is not just ecological – it involves the mots demanding levels of empathy in future generations.
Why then not focus on infants and animals, and – at a macro level of inclusive animal personhood – the creation of fundamental power relations between the two? Those like animal rights theorist Peter Singer, and others, do not do so because that level of comprehensive vision involves equity, race, democracy, and other factors that require true tradeoffs against one’s positionality.
The wealthy families funding animal rights, law and policy, for decades, refused to deal with this issue because they wanted to benefit from a system that quietly harmed animals, while seeming to be their saviors. Animal rights and law, in this sense, starts with the actual creation of power relations as children enter the world, represented by the collective pronouns implied or expressed in all statements, including purportedly “constitutive” statements like “We the People.” It is the most demanding standard, eco or animal centric, rather than anthropocentric, or punching down on the most vulnerable. But for Singer it was more important to raise his position as savior in an illegitimate system rather than focus on a better version of a “we” to legitimate it, and that did much more harm to animals than he did good.
Singer’s version of animal rights and law, the abstraction away from the creation of actual relations, is just charade version of animal liberation they need: Value animals in the abstract with one hand, make money on growth and privilege at cost to them with the other.
Effective animal rights in the best sense is personally expensive, not profitable. It’s easier to ignore all of that and let the macro undo good for animals at the micro level. True animal rights and law focuses on the creation of power relations, and limiting capacity to harm others – the capacity that is the core of the Anthropocene and the antithesis of animal rights. True animal rights mean preemptive standards in things like assessing damages to animals (and children). If captivity harms elephants for example, it’s because it deviates from a biodiverse and less crowded world where elephants are free of most human influence, not deviation from a relatively dismal life at a sanctuary.
Animal law starts with moving away from anthrocentric systems, toward seeing humans as the animals that they are, and situating them in equity, before we should have any sense that they can be free. But, as a close source to Fair Start said: “This is all the organizations will pay you to do. And if you love animals, that’s better than working for nonprofits.” Actually, research in the areas suggests the charade does more harm than good by moving the goalposts of social justice, and that in fact those engaged in it would never do so if they were not otherwise privileged to do so.
Fair Start initiated whistleblowing in this area as the evidence arose that the climate crisis could actually reduce the carrying capacities of ecosystems, rather than just exceed them, and that birth and developmental positionality was the greatest determinant of one’s prospects to to live or suffer/die in the crisis.
Implementing the fix: Being effective means addressing the root cause, not the symptom.
The only way to engage in damage evaluation for reparations, and the fraud hiding them, is to peg them to a functionally inclusive baseline – children entering the world relative to certain counterfactual thresholds – that would not have caused the death of millions of innocent persons.
Accurate reparations – relative to one’s positioning or membership position in the fundamental system of political obligation – fixes the problem of share inequity in one’s democracy vastly undoing the good many claimed to have done. Without them admitting the harm and fulfilling their obligations it would be impossible for any of us to live in a system of collective self-determination.
We only owe others as much as they owe entrants into the world, because any claim of inalienable rights assumes fulfillment of a prior duty to others. One can use the discourse mentioned above, the questions, to force others to derive their thinking back to “might makes right” logic, such that they fall outside of any theory of legitimacy or political obligation that would create a duty ensuring their protection by others. Living such a logic makes those who refuse fundamental fairness – those who embrace missing a crucial step in the logic of their oughtness – fall outside of systems of mutual obligation.
Here are some indicia that an entity is engaged in fundamental, or constitutive reparations fraud:
They will silo justice into downstream issues to avoid dealing with the creation of power relations.
They will conflate the difficulty of inverting power systems with their desire to retain their privilege.
They will redefine values over time to evade having contradicted themselves when called for payments.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
But as the climate crisis intensifies and kills millions who had little role in causing or exacerbating it, and at a time where a small percentage of persons have become obscenely wealthy, many are asking if there has been a fundamental failure of justice that we should all address.
Fact: The failure of world leaders for decades to ensure a measurable fair start in life, both ecologically and socially, for all children has done more to harm the practice of justice than Sandel and other luminaries have done to further it.
We have all benefitted at deadly cost to future generations, a fact quickly manifesting now as as the climate crisis intensifies.
None can be allowed to ignore creation ethics / positionality. Where, when and with which resources we are born is the largest determinant of outcomes in things like the climate crisis. And in terms of justice, and political obligation, there is no more basic a choice than how to deal with and offset our creation positionality, and the benefits and costs it conveys, intergenerationally for example.
Our collective failure to deal with the unjust and unsustainable system of growth that created our own birth, developmental, and emancipatory positionalities is leading to the death of millions. Academics are not immune from this systems of benefits and costs. In fact leaders in the academy are some of the most responsible, and we should all admit our benefitting at deadly cost to others based on never ensuring children the fair start in life justice required.
Ask anyone claiming to good work in the world to account for children being born without what the Children’s Rights Convention promises those kids in resources and rights. Then ask the person claiming to do good to reassess their claims. You will see a lot of good that many claimed to do actually fall away, by metrics we all believe in, with harm escalating as temperatures rise.
Fair Start reforms would ensure the things those who love freedom care about.
Eliminating entrenched and ineffective governments who survive by wasting tax dollars
Ensuring responsible parenting that halts the sea of child abuse and neglect which exists today
Ending unsustainable and universal growth models that are intended to ensure cheap labor via constant migration
Ensuring the protection of rights to bear arms consistent with governance by constituents who trust one another
And creating truly self-determining lives and relations that evade the need for climate migration, and are consistent with national security, etc.
Funding every child’s right to a fair start in life – over competing rights – is the most just and effective solution to the many crises we face today. It has an exponentially greater impact than most other interventions, many of which are being undone as children enter the world without the things they need.
Our obligations to fund that accounting come before anything we do because it ensures fundamental justice; it creates the inclusive and empowering “we.” Without this we can’t choose who has influence, and control, over us. We can’t be free.
Around the world women and girls are abused, trafficked and killed.
Climate reparations are a chance to change that, giving many women and girls significant savings accounts that they can use to get away from their abusers – money that they can use to ensure any children they might have one day become truly free.
Funding every child’s right to a fair start in life – over competing rights – is the most just and effective solution to the many crises we face today. It has an exponentially greater impact than most other interventions, many of which are being undone as children enter the world without the things they need.
Our obligations to fund that accounting come before anything we do because it ensures fundamental justice; it creates the inclusive and empowering “we.” Without this we can’t choose who has influence, and control, over us. We can’t be free.
Those same black children will die by the millions in the climate crisis, while many white children get richer and richer. We can change that by taking birth equity seriously.
The wealthy families and governments driving these regimes were avoiding measurable democratic equity as the overriding value behind political legitimacy. They were evading its ability to override existing entitlements. But by avoiding equity, they seeded racist inequity, unsustainable growth that would trigger the climate crisis, and the development of fundamentally illegitimate political systems that never measurably empowered their subjects enough to gain representative capacity and authority.
There were two standards for justice: The real – measured at a zero baseline using concrete markers for assessing self versus other determination, and the decoy – which centered on an illusion of bodily autonomy, one conflated with the capacity to harm others. If after 1948 national legitimacy and authority were contingent on inverting the flow of authority from government to the governed, this move represents the height of colonization because it assumed claims to authority and wealth that should instead have gone through a process of familial legitimation.
Funding every child’s right to a fair start in life – over competing rights – is the most just and effective solution to the many crises we face today. It has an exponentially greater impact than most other interventions, many of which are being undone as children enter the world without the things they need.
Our obligations to fund that accounting come before anything we do because it ensures fundamental justice; it creates the inclusive and empowering “we.” Without this we can’t choose who has influence, and control, over us. We can’t be free.
