Conspiracy theories about a one-world government have been around for decades. Years ago I thought they literally referred to a universal government like the United Nations, but with real authority that trumps that of duly-elected national leaders. What we’re experiencing now is a major shift in the same direction, but it’s much more subtle. There is no authoritative global legislative body, but our leaders—particularly Obama and the Europeans—are colluding to tax and spend for the supposed betterment of the world economy. I call it a de facto one-world government because the effect is much the same.
We’ve seen several clear examples of this in the last several months. If CO2 is heating up the planet, then it doesn’t make sense for one country to limit its emissions while another picks up the slack. A “unified response” to global warming is required. While a cap-and-trade scheme represents collective action that would ostensibly reduce carbon emissions, it would also limit economic growth and redistribute wealth from developed to undeveloped nations. Most proponents of cap-and-trade refuse to consider the strong arguments against significant anthropogenic global warming. For them, the real objective is a de facto one-world government.
We’ve also heard about the proposed global tax on banks to create a fund to finance future bailouts. We were told that all nations must participate, lest customers move their money to banks operating in nations where it is cheaper to do business. Even socialists recognize that taxes and regulations stifle economic activity, so nations must work in unison to ensure that nations with limited taxes and regulations aren’t allowed to benefit at the expense of those with more intrusive governments.
Now it’s Greece, where government debt and the welfare state have spiraled out of control. The IMF’s $140 billion bailout of the nation includes about $50 billion from U.S. taxpayers. That translates to somewhere around $500 per family, a lot more for many if you consider that half of U.S. tax filers don’t actually pay federal income taxes anyway. And this doesn’t include subsequent bailouts that will likely be needed to “stabilize” the region.
Countries often address insolvency problems in part by devaluing the currency. It’s not an attractive solution, but at least it confines much of the pain to the troubled nation. However, this is not an option for Greece because the nation does not control its own currency. Greece’s options are limited. Raise taxes and the slumping economy gets worse. Cut spending and the entitled class riots in the streets (Don’t think this can’t happen down the road in the U.S., but that’s another story).
Thanks to the European Union, Greece’s financial catastrophe is a collective problem. Because of the common currency, neighboring countries can’t afford to let Greece (or any other country in the EU) implode, so a bailout is required. A common currency formally links one country’s economic destiny to that of others in the group. Collective oversight (AKA, de facto one-world government) must be a part of the arrangement, and the strong and responsible will always end up paying for the weak and irresponsible. This is why we should never give serious consideration to a North American currency, much less a global one.
The marriage of capitalism and socialism in much of Europe has largely failed. Capitalism is the stronger partner but is constantly blamed for economic problems that can often be traced to government intervention. Socialism’s clear and only advantage is that it can generate fast revenue by taxing, borrowing, or devaluing the currency. Capitalism produces the only real wealth over the long term, but requires work, discipline, and the recognition that equal opportunity doesn’t necessarily translate into equal outcomes. It’s more polite to be a socialist, or at least argue for some sort of middle ground.
You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to see the trend. No global dictator has emerged, but we are really getting a steady, less tyrannical shift in the same direction. At stake are our liberties, our nation’s sovereignty, and the integrity of the Constitution.
I think there could be riots in the US if we don’t get our financial house in order. Just look at the protests in Arizona, and many of these people aren’t even legal. Imagine if the government had to make big cuts to the welfare state. I hope we could avoid violence, but who knows for sure.
i’m a conservative and we don’t need a one world government but sometimes you have to work with other countries to solve global problems. all 3 of your examples are cases where we can’t go alone. we can’t stop global warming alone, we can’t control the bankers unless everyone works together. we have to fix greece and we can’t if everyone doesn’t chip in. corporate greed is bad enough but national greed is even worse.
What about the kerry-lieberman plan? They say it creates jobs and cuts greenhouse gases.
The Kerry-Lieberman proposal is a form of cap and trade, but not on a global scale. It taxes energy use and subsidizes natural gas to cut emissions. Energy prices WILL rise with this bill, but there will be subsidies for the bottom 40% of wage earners (who don’t pay federal income taxes anyway). From a CO2 standpoint, this measure is useless because emissions from the developing world will more than compensate for any reductions in the US. From an economic standpoint, this is another attempt to redistribute wealth. Perhaps it makes us feel good because we’d be “doing something to save the planet,” but there is nothing else positive to say.
While I understand that there are some heavy duty players who think that nations should work toward a “one-world” global government, perhaps executed by the UN or an organization like the UN, no one has ever said why these players think this way. What would it gain the Maurice Strongs or the George Soros’ of the world to have this come about? Have they not gained their massive wealth due to the capitalists systems? And while they may talk collectivism and egalitarianism on a global scale, it is quite clear that they are not willing to give up their wealth to bring that about, at least not to the point where they would be considered “middle class”.
Is it power? Control? Both?
KG, you’re not a conservative. If you were, you’d realize that we shouldn’t control the bankers and don’t need to bailout Greece. You’d also see that the global warming deal is highly suspect in the first place.