Friday
Mar162012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill World government
Some time ago a journalist told me that many of his colleagues were so keen on environmentalism because they wanted to see a world government. I thought it was a bit kooky at the time and didn't really give it too much thought.
Interesting therefore to see Richard Black's article today, in which we see environmentalism being used to push just such a world government agenda. The idea appears to be that poor countries should be able to vote to transfer money from rich countries to themselves.
I expect our politicians to be fully in favour.
Reader Comments (67)
Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.
— Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses
It's worth taking the time to understand the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent
As these Location monopolies basically act as a privately collected source of taxation!
There's ONLY one way to really reduce total taxation, and that's the LVT.
Now back to topic.
The UN love Climate Change
They get to host those big conferances in exotic Locations
5star hotels limosuines 5star luxuary Hot Tubs Hookers all the rest of it
Could you imagine holding a conference on Climate Change in Sunny Scunthorpe
However the United Nations cant stop genocide or poverty
But they can talk the talk about Climate Change
Makes the UN seem important
Yeah great
".....The most radical idea in procedural terms is introducing majority voting in UN fora to prevent a few recalcitrant nations from blocking the will of the vast majority....."
Translation: So a bunch of Third World thieves can vote to steal all the money they want from First World people who actually earned it.
How convenient.
Dennis A, David S, Foxgoose:
When the Great Climate Epic film gets made (“Fellowship of the Tree Rings”?)
the parts of Gavin S, Michael M and Richard B will all be played by Ricky Gervais.
Foxgoose (Mar 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM)
Thanks for the useful links on worldgov. The Felix Dodds Wiki article in particular made me wonder how any sane person (eg me) can call themselves a lefty. Dodds informs us that he has two children, with no indication of how he produced them, and that he’s recently taken up blogging and twittering.
You call him a rabid far left activist, but in fact he’s a typical career-orientated centrist - straight up the back passage from Liberal Yoof Leader to “Leadership at the UN” (his current job title). Oh, and he’s written a book called “How to Lobby at Intergovernmental Meetings: Mine is a Café Latte”. Please tell me it’s all a bad parody.
The UN has this lunatic idea that the West, where almost all technologies have been developed, should have to "pay a debt" to nations who also want these technologies to improve their way of life. It is like compelling an inventor, who used capital to develop his idea for production, to pay customers to use his products. There is more justice in turning this around, by asking the developing countries for a license fee to use technologies.
This is very true. In the run up to a UN conference in Nairobi a few years ago, I heard an excellent piece by a BBC radio reporter (for Correspondent I think, and yes, a few of them can still produce very good journalism). Prior to attending the conference/summit, the reporter spent a few days visiting Kalahari tribesmen and villages, who were suffering badly due to the prolonged drought (which was not attributed to climate change afaik). Things were so bad that some tribesmen were having to sell their cattle - something unthinkable for them, given the importance of the beasts to their survival and culture.
The BBC reporter soon identified the problem and the solution; rain collection systems and storage tanks, at first one for each village, e.g. based on the school building, was all the villagers would need to help them through the worst of the droughts. Low cost and low tech, and surely something that a big or small NGO or aid programme could easily implement.
The reporter then went to the summit in the city, and was appalled by the disconnect he witnessed - delegates and politicians from all over the world, one after another giving high-falutin speeches about how more had to be done to help the developed world and environment, in between taking limos back and forward between the conference centre and 5 star hotels and restaurants. The conference achieved nothing tangible, just hot air and ego massages for second rate politicians. I don't think the reporter said it directly, but the message was clear - if just one of the delegates had spent the equivalent of his hotel and restaurant bill on rain water collection system for a not too distant village at least some good could have come out of the summit.
(Haven't you ever thought what is in it for Cameron or Gillard, for instance?)
Mar 16, 2012 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergraphicconception
=============
The return for working for the globalist conspiracy seems to come once the incumbent leaves office, Tony Blair is a case in point.
@ac1: This is why I say we have to look beyond left/right/centre definitions, if the LVT was introduced do you really think other taxes would be reduced? Especially if the mandate was from the UN.
have a search on http://p2pfoundation.net for "the third way" the "commons" and "LVT" which appear to be attracting many from the neo-environmentalists
I dunno, if you are not doing anything illegal, you're not commiting conspiracy.
Any number of people can come together around a set of altruistic ideals or for sheer self-interest (e.g., to get rich), and they are free to set up institutions promoting their ideals, plans and schemes. They are free to lobby politicians as well.
This is called democracy, not conspiracy.
sHx said:
Any number of people can come together around a set of altruistic ideals or for sheer self-interest (e.g., to get rich), and they are free to set up institutions promoting their ideals, plans and schemes. They are free to lobby politicians as well.
This is called democracy, not conspiracy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The activities you describe are independent of political systems. They have nothing to do with democracy per se whatsoever.
Describing social and political movements or trends as conspiracies is not very helpful either. In that sense, every group of people who get together to promote something is a conspiracy.
Let's just stick to identifying and supporting what we think is right (or at least less wrong) and opposing the crooks, fanatics, junketeers and opportunists who will make Bernie Madoff look like a minnow if we let them get away with it.
Some bed-time reading for doubters:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17826
http://www.green-agenda.com/
http://constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm
sHx said:
I don't think that is true. That was one of the complaints when the law was introduced. You do not have to commit an illegal act just conspire to commit one.
"the parts of Gavin S, Michael M and Richard B will all be played by Ricky Gervais."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant casting. As well as looking the part, no-one does smarm, snark, lack of insight and a wounded sense of entitlement like Ricky.
It would be like the best of Peter Sellers all over again.
It is not a conspiracy. Rather, it is a shared vision of the future.
Reading in Stevo's links, the content has all the attributes of a conspiracy. It may be an "open conspiracy", but that is because nowadays nothing can be secret. However, there is so much information that you have to stumble upon it, as I have done reading this blog post's comments.
The World Government "conspiracy" looks like boys playing cops and robbers, bankers playing monopoly and I think it is run by people who have nothing better to do and do not have to work for a living.
The UN document "UN ad hoc working group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention" is such an utterly bureaucratic piece of "work" with its transparent impenetrability that it is hard to believe anything will come of it. At the next COP meeting 80% of the delegates will be new and they will unable to read and understand it quickly enough to deal with it properly.
So, my question is, should this World Government conspiracy really be taken seriously?