While driving the other day, I had a revolutionary idea:
Each one of us, as an individual, could offset our own carbon emissions by paying a poor person in a developing country to commit suicide.
By doing so, not only would we help solve the problem of the greenhouse effect, we would also help provide a steady income for developing countries and tackle the problem of global overpopulation. The wealth of participating developing countries would increase at a rate proportional to the lessening of their populations.
I expect the interest within a developing country for “green” suicides to eventually taper off once the remaining population becomes rich.
And, to avoid people being fooled into committing suicide by environmentally friendly bastards who won’t pay out, an independent organization could be setup that transfers the funds to the inheritors once the suicide has been committed. And I have a name for it: RestInGreenPeace.com. The url is available.
How about it?
Of course it’s outrageous. But - what’s wrong with this picture?
Ever since its inception, the European Union has been gaining momentum. The latest attempts at putting forward a unifying constitution have failed, but I believe that a European constitution is not far off in the future. The only question, in my mind at least, is whether the final draft will be as liberal as the one rejected by the last referenda. I fear that it won’t be. After all, it was a surprise that the latest draft was as liberal as it was.
It was a surprise to me. I believe that the European Union is a profoundly socialist and undemocratic organization that does not value our liberties.
Let me take a step back. the European Constitution would be, even by my own high standards, an improvement on most - if not all - European constitutions. But when did we give our governments the right to negotiate our current constitutions?
As far as I know, this question remains unanswered. Nevertheless, whenever the matter is hinted at, both media and politicians suggest that it is a complicated matter only understood by (so-called) experts in constitutional law.
In other words, they are saying that they know better. I find this hard to digest. Constitutions may have been written by politicians, but any reading of them should be literal and unequivocal. To suggest otherwise is simply fallacious.
We should not be so easily deceived.