Fair Start Movement

Category: Family Planning & Child Rights

Don’t Get Scammed: Charities, Media and Big Business Use Family Policy to Quietly Undo Progress. Ask This One Question Before Giving, Believing, or Buying.
To avoid greenwashing scams and see the truth about what is impacting your and your family’s future you can ask one simple question of any person or group claiming to do good:

What have you been doing to deal with the basic connection between children being born, and things like child welfare, the climate crisis, animal rights, or anything else you might claim to care about?

This one question helps us spot the #famscam. It’s a scam run by nonprofits, advertising-driven media and big businesses – making it seem like we are reducing or refining consumption, and reducing climate emissions, through abstract top-down reforms, while quietly, bottom-up increasing the number of consumers to maintain profits margins. Animal “rights” organizations that do nothing about animal-killing growth, while making money on it by partnering with vegan food companies who rely on that growth, is a great example of the scam.

That process, rather than investing more in children, degrades the natural, nonhuman world you and your children need to thrive, creates vast inequality, and dilutes your voice in town halls that make the rules under which you live.
There are essentially two answers to this question:

1) Those who are actually accounting for children’s rights as the first form of justice in the creation of actual, bottom-up, human power relations. They may do it through practical things like using birth equity payments as a human right to force reparations that restore the climate and nature.

This is the most just and effective form of social justice.

And 2) those who are not, among whom many are knowingly undoing their own fundraising and other claims by embracing growth, and exploiting future generations and nature to benefit a few. They undermine freedom for all because they never really orient their behavior from an objectively fair and just position and cannot create political obligation.

Continuing this #famscam – what one Nobel laureate called a pyramid scheme – will skew the baseline for reparations, and ensure those least responsible for climate, inequity and other crises – future children in the Global South – suffer their greatest consequences.

The self-serving, pro-growth policies they hid undid roughly 3/4ths of the climate mitigation attempted in the last few decades, and ensured there are more animals in factory farms, less wildlife and nature, more children tortured and killed by their parents, and greater inequality, than ever before. That undoing – all done under coercive legal systems – will kill millions in the climate disaster.

TAKE ACTION:

Target concentrations of wealth that were created by using unsustainable and inequitable growth to externalize costs on future generations to now pay those costs back in form of family planning entitlements. Those payments are a human right.

Urge the United Nations to adopt Fair Start as the first and overriding human right, and use it to accelerate climate reparations and increase the amount owed to fully compensate the victims.

Target directly those most responsible to pay what they owe. Truth starts with using questions like the one above to call out liars, those who use fake versions of social justice that – when examined – actually start by using future generations to convert the nonhuman world into wealth for a few men.
May 27, 2023
Horse Protection 101? Leave Room for Them.

Many advocate for the protection of horses and other equines.

Why would they undo their own efforts by simply accepting growth-based family policies? These policies, across the board, increase demand for cruel equine products like ejiao, ensure the proliferation of more horse blood farms, increase spectatorship at deadly horse racing events, eradicate what’s left of wild horse habitat, and reduce habitat for even domesticated horses.

That makes no sense. I

t really makes no sense when you realize those growth-based policies violate human rights as well, robbing future children of what they deserve in life by ensuring no minimum levels of investment and welfare in each child.

By Appbirdky – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=131834975

And that’s to say nothing of how those growth-based family policies are driving a climate crisis that will kill countless equines, and push more and more kids through failing families and educational systems that do nothing to ensure they will have even minimal empathetic capacity to treat horses and other equines with love and care.

Small downstream moves, like protests, lawsuits, and better regulations are great.

But they should not replace effective upstream changes in the people we are becoming, changes that can reverse growth that – per so many Nobel laureates – is decimating our world. And animal rights theory remains just that – theory, and not very useful, if we do no change who we are becoming in order to liberate them.

Horses would not be in trouble if we had done this decades ago. Let’s do it now, and as a means of decolonizing the future for humans and the beyond the human.

TAKE ACTION:

JUST THE WAY MANY ANIMAL ORGANIZATIONS CHOOSE ANIMAL-RELATED POLICIES AROUND FOOD, THEY CAN DO THE SAME AROUND FAMILY. HERE ARE MANY CHOICES.

URGE THE UNITED NATIONS TO TKE HUMAN RIGHTS SERIOUSLY AND TREAT AN ECOSOCIAL FAIR START IN LIFE – ONE THAT REWILDS THE WORLD – AS THE FIRST AND OVERRIDING HIUMAN RIGHT.

IF YOU BACK AN ORGANIZATION THAT CLAIMS TO ADVOCATE FOR HORSES AND OTHER EQUINES, ASK ONE QUESTION TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT UNDOING THEIR OWN WORK WITH OUTDATED FAMILY POLICY

May 25, 2023
Asking One Question Can Tell You Whether Someone Is Really Trying to Make the World a Better, and More Free, Place
Children are being tortured and killed by their parents. They will die in the climate crisis. Why? Because a few men in leadership continue to favor profitable population growth over sustainable and equitable family planning entitlements – something that betters the way we plan families and has the greatest impact – as the first human right. Continuing will ensure those least responsible for climate, inequity and other crises suffer their greatest consequences. We can change course by targeting these men, much the way movements in the past focused on choke points to make true change.

To avoid scams, see the truth, and identify the choke points you can ask one simple question of any person or group claiming to do good: What have you been doing to deal with the basic connection between children being born, and things like child welfare, the climate crisis, animal rights, or anything else you might claim to care about? There are essentially two answers to this question: Those who are actually accounting for children’s rights as the first form of justice in the constituting of actual human power relations, through things like using birth equity as a human right to restore the climate. And those who are not, among whom many are knowingly undoing their own fundraising and other claims, and exploiting future generations and nature to benefit a few.

This question helps us spot the #famscam. It’s a scam run by nonprofits, media and businesses – making it seem like we are reducing or refining consumption, and reducing climate emissions, through abstract top-down reforms, while quietly, bottom-up increasing the number of consumers to maintain profits margins. The pro-growth policies they hid undid roughly 3/4ths of the climate mitigation attempted in the last few decades, and ensured there are more animals in factory farms, less wildlife and nature, and greater inequity, than ever before. That undoing will kill millions.

Anthony Avalos was tortured to death by his parents – for years routinely beaten, whipped and dropped on his head, smashed into the floor or furniture, burned with cigarettes, and denied water and food at times. He is not alone. Roughly five children die at the hands of their parents each week in the U.S. alone.

Many more of us, potentially millions and mostly in the Global South, will die as the climate crisis unfolds.

What’s the connection between these facts? The resources necessary – universally – to incentivize parents to plan their families are simply not there.

They are being taken, and are absent from planning systems, because some men in leadership continue to favor profitable population growth policies over the first human right – sustainable and equitable family planning entitlements. The money is going to them, not moms and kids.

They are assisted by nonprofits, media and businesses that – through growthwashing – hide that growth and its impacts, creating a fantasy world of progress for animals, children, and the environment that is just not there. The pro-growth policies they hid undid roughly 3/4ths of the climate mitigation attempted in the last few decades, and ensured there are more animals in factory farms, less wildlife and nature, and greater inequity, than ever before.

Massive environmental organizations ran campaigns to protect particular tracts of land while quietly backing growth policies that have ensured mass extinction and wildfires on those same tracts of land. Giant animal charities ran million dollar campaigns to expand cage sizes in factory farms for millions animals, or featured vegan products as a form of cutting edge social change, while silently choosing family models that ensured billions of new animals would enter the supply chain.

Why cover up these growth-based or fundamental impacts? The family reforms that would prevent these harms, when correctly researched and assessed, ensure all children a fair start in life by overriding current property rights to ensure that all children get enough of what they need in order to physically compromise legitimate democracies cable of actually and fairly assigning property rights. No theory of obligation to follow the law works unless it accounts for the creation of just power relations, and all power relations are fundamentally created at birth.

People, not documents like national constitutions or even international human rights instruments, constitute free nations. Not telling this truth is killing innocent persons, skewing the baseline for live-saving climate loss and damage funding, including the prioritization of claims, the amount owed, and how they must be used.

Faking progress while hiding deadly growth, especially when we have a right to take the resources that would stop it, will ensure the death of millions. It’s a scam run by nonprofits, media and businesses – making it seem like we are reducing or refining consumption and climate emissions, through abstract top down reforms, while quietly bottom-up increasing the number of consumers to maintain profits.

Continuing will ensure those least responsible for climate, inequity and other crises suffer their greatest consequences.

To avoid scams, and see the truth, you can ask one simple question of any person or group claiming to do good: What have you been doing to deal with the basic connection between children being born, and things like child welfare, the climate crisis, animal rights, or anything else you might claim to care about?

There are essentially two answers to this question: Those who are actually accounting for children’s rights as the first form of justice in the constituting of actual human power relations, through things like using birth equity as a human right to restore the climate. And those who are not, among whom many are knowingly undoing their own fundraising and other claims, and exploiting future generations and nature to benefit a few.

Making the world a better and more free place requires dealing with fundamental human relationships as they are created, and how humans will relate to nonhuman ecologies, not theoretical relationships. And that starts with and requires changing the way we plan actual families, moving from systems based on what parents want to what children need, with the Children’s Rights Convention as a minimal planning standard. That means actually looking forward. It starts with using questions like the one above to call out liars, those who use fake versions of social justice that – when examined – actually start by using future generations to convert the nonhuman world into wealth for a few men.

How could we possibly think we are protecting animals while ignoring the creation of the humans who will harm them? Organizations avoid this issue because it is hard to navigate, and they can make money on low impact campaigns instead. Every problem we face today stems from family policies that inequity and pushed growth over children’s rights – treating us like fodder for shopping malls rather than citizens for town halls. Why keep making that mistake?

This does not have to be about making the world a better place. How are the children being born into the world today limiting your personal freedom? How will they degrade the climate you need to survive, increase other threats to your security, and limit your role in functional democracies – you right to an effective say over the rules under which you must live? How will widening inequality further degrade the communities in which you live? Being free means being obligated only to follow legitimate laws (including laws that protect wealth at the top) which begin by empowering each person to be relatively self-determining – and in a measurable way. It means taking democracy, the limitation and decentralization of power, seriously.

Either way, ask the one question of anyone claiming to work towards a better future.

TAKE ACTION:
- Ask any nonprofit you support this crucial question: What have you been doing to deal with the basic connection between children being born, and things like the climate crisis, child welfare, or anything else you might claim to care about?
- Target concentrations of wealth that were created by using unsustainable and inequitable growth to externalize costs on future generations to now pay those costs back in form of family planning entitlements.
- Urge the United Nations to adopt Fair Start as the first and overriding human right.
May 24, 2023
Unfair and Unsustainable Family Policies Created the Climate and Inequity Crises Killing Many Today. Urge Leaders to Say What They Are Doing to Change Fundamental Course.
Climate change is already killing many, including infants, and will kill millions more. Most of the attempts to mitigate the crisis have been undone by growth. At the most fundamental level that growth was enabled by family and family planning systems that favored isolating parents and the family unit, over protecting children and ensuring their equity.

This moved wealth from women and children into the hands of relatively small group of men, and hid the way just family policies can override political processes and the entitlements they try to assign to the wealthiest and most powerful.

Who has more at stake in the act of creating a child – the adults or the kid? If we really think about it, children do. Adults can and do walk away from the children they create all the time. Children cannot walk away from their lives. So fundamental justice begins from the bottom, like democracy, with child-centric policies that include climate reforms, as described in this Newsweek piece. Prior political theories missed this, and did not account for our birth and development as the most basic power relations and obligations, because they treated power as flowing top down, not truly deriving from people and not about real relations to the extent they ignored ensuring the creation of persons in conditions – and with relations – consistent with minimums like the Children’s Rights Convention.

And because justice and fairness are a prerequisite for being free, and freedom is impossible without them, free persons will fight for child-centric reforms that allow them to consent to the power others would have over them.

Free persons will in this way choose to physically constitute just communities, rather than pretend we live in them.

People, not documents like national constitutions or even international human rights instruments, constitute free nations. Not telling this truth is killing innocent persons, skewing the baseline for live-saving climate loss and damage funding, including the prioritization of claims, the amount owed, and how they must be used.

Not making this change and ending what we might call the #famscam means those least responsible for the crisis – including future generations – will be the most harmed. There is no greater injustice.

And because everything we do originates from the obligations to those around us, a process that is dynamic as persons enter and leave the world, we all have a choice to orient our lives from a relatively just, or child-centric, or unjust fundamental position – and to take direct action to liberate ourselves and others accordingly – as described in the Newsweek piece above.

Freedom begins with human rights and democracy, or the limiting of subjective human influence with objective norms. But because of our failure to orient family policies more around what children need than what parents want, this crucial limiting never occurred.

Consistent with this, historically many leaders chose to act in this fundamentally unjust way. They chose to exploit future generations to create economic growth, avoiding child-centric reforms, even simple things like using the Children’s Rights Convention as a standard for universal family planning and incentivizing entitlements and resources as the primary determinant of family planning behavior.

This hid the override, discussed above. We can take that money back.

Be effective.
- Organizations like UNICEF and the UNFPA chose unjust policies that ensured more children were born into conditions that violated the conditions than they were taking out of such conditions.
- Companies like Unilever were growthwashing, omitting the impact of family policies on the environment while urging women to have more kids so the company could sell more products.
- Thought leaders like Peter Singer mislead many influential activists regarding what things like animal liberation actually means, because he failed to urge the necessary family reforms to make that liberation real.
- Leaders like Joe Biden (who only authority derives from actually empowering citizens) were choosing growth policies in the middle of the climate crisis that used children from economic growth rather than protecting them.
- Nonprofits like the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Our Children’s Trust were choosing to undo their own work with fundamentally unfair and ineffective baseline standards.
Want to see the injustice in action? Ask anyone making a claim about furthering particular values to account for how the family norms, policies and relative ranking of obligations (family norms do and should come first) impact the claims. See if the persons making the claims never accounted for these factors, and whether these factors actually undid the claimed values, and instead created the climate crisis and vast inequity.

One way to actually constitute free nations is by targeting high-profile individuals, and whose wealth and power were created through growth and other policies that robbed women and children of what they deserve (and that’s based on assessments by a Nobel laureate, among others), as examples to pay what they owe or take other reparative actions. They are choke points, and their changing course – limiting and decentralizing their own wealth and power through things like climate reparations – can lead as an example to others in ways that can save millions of lives.

And we can identify others, high profile leaders, by simply taking the action described at the end of this article.

Not telling this truth is killing innocent persons, skewing the baseline for live-saving climate loss and damage funding, including the prioritization of claims, the amount owed, and how they must be used.

TAKE ACTION: Urge political, business, and nonprofit leaders to say whether they are choosing to be fundamentally just, or unjust – to simply tell the truth – and if they are choosing to be just what specific actions they are taking in this regard.
- If you support a child welfare organization: Does it urge communities and parents to ensure minimum levels of welfare for kids, before they are born, in order to avoid less effective interventions later in life?
- If you support an environmental or animal protection organization: Does it promote sustainable families, by far the most effective way to ensure a healthy environment, biodiversity, and less animal suffering?
- If you support social justice organizations working on racial, economic, gender, or other forms of equality: Do they promote family planning policies that a) level the playing field for all kids so that they truly have equal opportunities In life, and b) advance gender equity by eliminating all forms of pronatalism, or pushing people to have kids?
- If you support organizations promoting human rights and democracy: Do they promote family planning policies that will ensure each person has an effective voice in their political systems and is not lost in the crowd?
May 14, 2023
We Asked ChatGPT If All Kids Deserve a Fair Start in Life. This Was the Answer.
ChatGPT is an open access artificial intelligence system growing in popularity. We asked the system about kids, and the need for a fair start in life.

This is what it said:

Yes, all children deserve a fair start in life. Every child, regardless of their circumstances, should have access to the resources, opportunities, and support they need to reach their full potential. A fair start in life includes access to quality education, healthcare, nutrition, housing, and a safe environment free from abuse and neglect. Ensuring that every child has a fair start in life is not only a moral imperative but also essential for building a prosperous and healthy society. By investing in the well-being of our children, we can create a better future for all.

And as for how to give them that? We asked this: How do we give all kids a fair start in life?

Giving all kids a fair start in life requires a multi-faceted approach that involves addressing a range of factors that can influence a child’s development and opportunities. Some of the key factors that can impact a child’s early years include:
1. Access to quality early childhood education: Research shows that early childhood education can have a significant impact on a child’s cognitive and social development, as well as their future academic success. Ensuring that all children have access to high-quality early childhood education programs can help level the playing field and give them a strong foundation for future learning.
2. Access to healthcare: Regular access to healthcare can help ensure that children stay healthy and are able to develop to their full potential. This includes providing access to preventative care, such as vaccines and check-ups, as well as treatment for illnesses and injuries.
3. Nutritious food and adequate housing: Children who experience food insecurity or unstable housing may struggle to learn and grow to their full potential. Providing access to healthy food and affordable housing can help ensure that all children have a fair start in life.
4. Supportive families and communities: Children who have supportive families and communities are more likely to thrive. This includes providing access to safe and nurturing environments, as well as social and emotional support.
5. Equal opportunities: All children should have access to the same opportunities, regardless of their background or circumstances. This includes access to quality education, healthcare, and other resources that can help them reach their full potential.
By addressing these factors, we can help ensure that all children have a fair start in life and the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Note that ChatGPT does not specify when we should take the necessary steps to ensure these things. So we asked another question:

Should we change our family planning policies to ensure all children a fair start in life?

Family planning policies can have a significant impact on ensuring that all children have a fair start in life. While every country has its own unique set of circumstances, there are a few general ways that family planning policies can be changed to help achieve this goal:
1. Access to contraception: One of the primary ways to ensure that families can plan their pregnancies and have the number of children they desire is to ensure that they have access to a range of contraceptive options. This can help reduce unintended pregnancies and enable parents to plan and prepare for their children’s arrival.
2. Education: Providing education and information about family planning can help individuals and couples make informed decisions about when to have children and how many children they want to have. This education can also include information about maternal and child health, nutrition, and child development.
3. Healthcare: Access to quality healthcare, including prenatal care and pediatric care, can help ensure that children get a healthy start in life. This includes access to vaccinations, regular check-ups, and timely treatment of illnesses and conditions.
4. Support for families: Providing support for families, such as parental leave, child care, and family-friendly workplaces, can help parents balance work and family responsibilities and provide the care and support that children need.
By prioritizing these areas, family planning policies can help ensure that all children have a fair start in life.
May 13, 2023
What is GrowthWashing? The Most Lethal Form of Greenwashing

Greenwashing is generally when someone conveys a false impression or misleading information about how a company’s products or services are environmentally sound. Often it involves using terms like green, sustainable, humane, safe, or regenerative, etc. when those making the claim are on balance harming the environment.

One of the worst forms of greenwashing is called growthwashing, or hiding the impact of population growth when making a claim. When a company or nonprofit makes any claim related to the environment, check to see if they are accounting for the way outdated family policy, and the growth it creates, is undoing that progress. The claims usually omit the fact that population growth is undoing the what is being claimed, increasing demand and consumption in a way that is causing ecocide. That means those making the claims chose family policies that put more animals in factory farms, research labs, and puppy mills, ensured more children would be born and raised in conditions of abuse, suffering and deprivation, and policies that also ensured each person had less of a voice in their political systems – the systems many groups point to as the best source of change.

They growth many claims hid (and sometimes promoted) undid roughly three-quarters of the reductions in carbon emissions achieved since 1990 by increased efficiency and alternative energy production.
https://populationmatters.org/news/2021/01/study-population-growth-cancelling-out-climate-change-progress/

Those lies will help lead to the death of millions in the future.

As we describe in the letter linked here, Exxon, and its claims, are a great example. They use a basic system of family policies that further vast birth inequity, a form of white supremacy, and which ensure ecocide. This means literally using children to destroy the environment they need to survive in order to create growth-based profits for a few. This means growthwashing is also a form of wokewashing, to the extent it exacerbates birth inequity by hiding more equitable solutions, like baby bonds. Such inequity is actually a vestige of historical inequity that can be traced back to slavery.

Growthwashing, as explained in the letter to Exxon, relies on hiding the fundamental baseline for cost/benefit analysis. That is what makes it especially lethal – it skews whether we owe things like climate reparations, the amount owed, and how they should be used.

The growth in the chart below – at the most fundamental level – made some rich, some poor, and ensured the climate crisis would fall hardest on those least responsible for it.

Doing so is destructive to the environment on multiple levels, as growth has undone almost three-quarters of the reduction in climate emissions attempted in recent years through things like energy transitions, ensured children are born in conditions that violate the Children’s Rights Convention (which mean they will be less able to deal with worsening climates), widened the massive gulf between rich and poor (which largely tracks along race lines), and debilitated the voices of everyday people in their democracies.

Growthwashing is one of the worst ways to exacerbate the climate crisis, and it prevents reforms that could save millions of lives.

Growthwashing does something else that is uniquely harmful. It hides the impact human rights can have on our lives when we truly understand them, and the way fairness – first and foremost in our creation – overrides conflicting rights and interests, like property rights to wealth, much of which was made by externalizing costs on future generations. Growthwashing hides that we cannot separate our values from who we should be.

Growthwashing hides what we owe to future generations, and instead it enables our quiet exploitation of them.

Growthwashing, unlike simple greenwashing, involves robbing us of our freedoms in a variety of ways, in addition to harming us through our environment. It hides our valid claim to resources for young women to plan their families in a way that can save millions of lives.

Why growthwash at all?

Businesses, and many wealth investors who also control the messaging and campaigns at nonprofits, make money from unsustainable population growth that creates lots of cheap labor, hungry consumers, and a larger tax base. They can make more money by quietly undoing with one hand the benefits to the environment they claim to be creating with the other hand.

I have sat and chatted with wealthy funders backing vegan food companies and nonprofits that made wildly misleading claims about the social and environmental benefits of the products, and who were making money on population -driven growth in markets. They knew what they were doing. I have seen national nonprofits bury research showing the harm growthwashing does, for fear of what their funders – many of whom are moving massive and unearned privilege to their rich white kids – would do if it were revealed. No only were they lying about the impacts of their philanthropy, but they were doing so in a way that harmed p oor kids to enrich their own kids through growth-based investments.

TAKE ACTION: One way to address growthwashing is by requiring the Environmental, Social and Governance reporting requirements include family policies and their impacts. Urge the Biden Administration to require this.

April 28, 2023
You Could Save Millions of Lives by Engaging Fossil Fuel Magnate John T. Raymond

*Note – we changed the content on May 11th based on advice from a social change leader urging that we should be less confrontational, and more collaborative. This was the advice:

I think framing John Raymond as a bad person who needs to have his money removed from him is not a angle that readers can get behind, since he is just doing what ambitious capitalist Americans do. Let’s face it, if most Americans were in John Raymond’s shoes, they would have done the same thing. The argument would be that John Raymond’s son or daughter will have to do differently, as our world cannot continue having this economic system that it does. And if Raymond loves his children, he will change his ways NOW since we do not have time to waste. So instead of us preying on John and taking things from him, framing it as John giving to the world by changing his ways because he loves his kid might be a better tactic.

John T. Raymond is the son of Lee Raymond, who have may have done more to exacerbate the climate emergency than any one person.

John, who through his father became an fossil fuel magnate in his own right, is a great example of unearned and massive birth privilege.

And because he is in the business of fossil fuels, the wealth he “owns” was made at cost – through the climate crisis – to those in the future. The cost of much of his family’s wealth could be the death of millions.

John T. Raymond is great example of the climate trolley problem, recently covered in Newsweek. What if you could save millions by engaging one man? You can. John. T Raymond is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, money made by externalizing costs and risks on others.

That money could be used to reform the way we create families, moving from parent focused modes that isolate us to child-centric modes that unify communities, which would be the most just and effective response to the climate crisis.

Cheerful African Ethnicity Infant Carrying Healthy Water for a dehydration concept

It could reduce emissions in a massive way, and relocate children – while arming them with resources – to safety. This change could unfold in ways that impact billions of at-risk families over time.

That move is not just reducing emissions, but readying future generations for the worst.

This will save millions of lives, and end policies that are irrefutably racist and ecocidal.

And because families come first, this unique reform limits John’s property rights (capturing the costs his wealth foisted on others). We are just, before we own justly. We have a right to engage him on this issue of unpaid costs, and the need to cover climate reparation, because governments cannot assign rights in derogation of our being – at constitutional level – free and equal. What I just said has been subject to multiple positive peer reviews, and some have tried to hide it because of what this truth could do.

There are baselines for assessing costs and benefits, including when we use currencies like freedom, but all would have to start with how systems of obligation – like the laws that protect John’s wealth – actually include the persons they impact in the allocation decision-making process. Are they actually constitutive or obligatory, or attenuated from their subjects? The particular laws that protect John’s wealth do not fare well when scrutinized. They are based on creating lots of people for shopping malls rather than ensuring minimum levels of development in each person to ready them for town halls. Freedom comes in reversing that basic form of disempowerment.

One could argue that the positive law entitlements described in the first link of this paragraph must control in the absence of agreement otherwise, but unpacked that boils down to doing what the government – the men with guns – says, because it is the government. But that, as a reason, is the opposite of the ideal of American freedom.

This is all beyond liberalism or conservatism. We might equally target the lead at the New York Times – Joseph Kahn – for his role, his use of power, in holding up the family system that created John’s wealth.

Justice means more freedom for all.

TAKE ACTION: Contact John here through his agents, and urge him to do the right thing, or find and reason with him lawfully and peacefully in person and we will publicize your bravery. Free persons will limit and decentralize the influence others have over them (including climatological influence) by physically constituting just communities, relative to a neutral baseline like a restored climate and nature, such that we are not interfering with the freedom or relative self-determination of others.

John, using some of his wealth to give back to future generations and reorient what we mean by being free, could lead in this regard.

Want to be effective? Target other choke point high-value targets like Vladimir Putin (who financed western oil companies) or Joseph Kahn, lead editor at the New York Times, who urges women to have kids to in order to further grow the economy that is ensuring the climate crisis.

April 13, 2023
Lauren Boebert Is Wrong About Kids, and for Reasons Beyond the Liberal/Conservative Divide. She’s Preconstitutional.
Representative Lauren Boebert recently suggested, in a signal on abortion policy, that human babies might be also be considered an endangered species.

The comment – combined with an assessment of her policies more generally – shows that Boebert does not orient from a sufficiently just and reasonable position, and thus falls outside of the realm of reasonability necessary to be part of a social contract that is the basis of American freedom.

Here are three reasons:
- Nothing in Boebert’s policies suggests she wants to ensures a minimum level of welfare and development for each child born. No reasonable persons would want to be born without that assurance, lest they be tortured and killed by their parents in infancy. There are ways to empower courts to create such levels.
- Similarly, nothing in her policies suggests she would ensure minimum levels of social development for each child born. No reasonable person would submit to a democracy where other citizens are not developed to participate in that democracy – to join others as equals in a town hall debate to control the rules under which they should live. They certainly would not submit to millions of others raised with no such levels. Is it hard to define welfare and social development for all of this? The Children’s Convention did the defining, decades ago.
- This continued rejection of responsible parenting and child development requirements has fundamentally degraded ecological and social conditions in ways that now threaten U.S. security interests. No reasonable person would continue to exacerbate this situation, but would rather choose to invest in the development of each person to levels that enable security and democracy universally.
In other words, Boebert’s not constituting a just and free society because she is ignoring the necessary development of its members. She believes it’s ok for people you do not trust to have power over you, or she rejects the idea that governance and obligation to follow laws derives from the people.

Based on research verified in almost a dozen peer-reviews, there is no other outcome if you reject fairness in creation.

Free people will condition their obligation to follow the law and respect property rights on this change, and on being democratically empowered using a simple inversion test, because only these changes ensure they will not be impacted by others – through even subtle things like the climate crisis and bad parenting – against their will. The obligation to follow the law stems from systems being fair and free, and systems start with family policy.

Boebert is preconstitutional, promoting an fantasy world of freedom that ignores actual power relations, and their creation or constituting of their relations.

Take action: Urge Boebert here to adopt Fair Start modeling in her policies to correct all of this, and to be reasonable in a way that enables democracy, and the freedom it allows.
April 6, 2023
ESTHER AFOLARANMI AND THE MEANING OF BASIC JUSTICE FOR ALL.
By Esther Afolaranmi. Esther is a Law Graduate from Bowen University, and will be working with the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project at the University of Denver this year. Esther has career interests in corporate/commercial law practice, real estate management, family law and a keen interest in human rights. She enjoys and excels at being the voice of the voiceless.
- Esther explains why physical decolonization is a legal obligation under the human rights regime that involves urging concentrations of wealth and power – leaders – to use their influence, money and otherwise, to empower future generations ecologically and socially. Joseph Kahn, of the New York Times, is one such leader. Urging high profile leader like Kahn to tell the truth about their role in family injustice, in protest of the system they prop up, could be the most effective way to mitigate the climate and inequity crises.
- In fulfillment of that legal obligation Fair Start is funding the Seeds for the Future program. The money Fair Start gives into this is not a donation. It was an approximation of what we owe based on how our wealth externalized its costs on future generations relative to a power neutral baseline. For Exxon that figure would be exorbitant, and dozens of interviews with political/legal theorists later, none can tell us why Esther’s demand for family-based climate reparations does not precede and thus override political processes.
Cheerful African Ethnicity Infant Carrying Healthy Water for a dehydration concept
- This physical decolonization will end the ecocide and white supremacy hiding in our current and near-universal family policies, the policies Kahn and other leaders reinforce every day.
- This creates a future where birth equity entitlements determine family planning outcomes. In the spirit of Bell Hooks, love should be our guide and if it takes a village to raise a child it take a village to plan for and invest equitable in them.
- This change can be be made within nations, in domestic legal systems, as well. For example, domestic law can be amended to promote birth equity over family autonomy, targeting those like Elon Musk who never paid the costs of their massive wealth, costs laid on the backs of women and children.
- Do individuals and organizations really back his change? If they have not signed this letter they do not back it, but are hiding from the truth.
Here is what Esther had to say:

Climate restoration involves the process of reversing the damage caused by climate change and restoring the natural systems that have been impacted by human activities. The concept of birth equity depicts that every child born into a society has an equal chance at life, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.

The idea of linking climate restoration with birth equity as a legal obligation is what we propose. We suggest that in order to address climate change and restore the planet, we must also consider how we bring new life into the world and ensure that every child has an equal chance at a healthy and sustainable future.

This approach acknowledges the fact that certain populations, such as low-income communities and communities of color, are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. By prioritizing these obligations, we can work towards addressing these disparities and ensuring that every child has access to the resources and opportunities needed to thrive and that’s what the Seeds for the Future Project is about.

The Seeds for the Future campaign aims to address food insecurity, harsh climatic changes, wealth injustices, children’s rights and family size at grassroots in Uganda.

We reckon that implementing this concept as a legal obligation (though some may choose to give as charity) would likely be challenging. It would require significant changes to our legal and social systems, as well as widespread support from policymakers and the public. We are ready and committed to championing this cause.

This is what our partner Robert at Rejoice Africa Foundation said on these matters:

Drought, hunger , food insecurity, disease , population increase due to climate crisis . People are dying younger than they were dying in past centuries. The Global North is continuing to turn their deaf ears, listening to songs of suffering global South and they only give empty pledges. Global North organizations , donors and foundations have continued to fund nonprofits registered in Global North who come to Global South to generate reports without working on the root cause of the climate crisis .

Additionally, it would require addressing underlying issues such as poverty, systemic racism, and environmental injustice, which are complex and deeply ingrained in our society. By working towards a more equitable and sustainable future for all children, we can build a healthier and more resilient society for generations to come.
April 6, 2023