Thursday, December 10, 2009
Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy Do Their Part for Global Government
I don't know why even some libertarians (and no I'm not even referring to the recent spat) find it so taboo to occasionally remind people that an elite group is quite literally trying to take over the world. At Copenhagen we've got world leaders working on a global agreement to harmonize the intense regulation of energy markets, and today we've got an op ed in the WSJ from Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy calling for a global financial regulatory framework:
I know, I know, none of this is conclusive. It's entirely possible that all these political leaders really have the best of intentions, and they are just misinformed with faulty economic models. I mean, the only way we could ever really know for sure that there is a global elite who are truly plotting for one world government, is if one of them, oh I don't know, published a book and literally admitted it. But that would never happen. I mean, you can't expect, say, David Rockefeller to write the following in his memoirs:
In regard to regulation, the EU has adopted a comprehensive set of new rules for the financial sector to avoid the repetition of the crisis: control over credit rating agencies, stronger capital requirements on complex products such as securitization, and strengthened deposit guarantee schemes. We have set up strict rules to make sure that compensation systems avoid excessive risk taking. We will also implement stricter capital rules for banks.The fulcrum for their entire case is the ostensible fact that taxpayers have to bail out big financial institutions when they get into trouble. Well how do we know that is true? Let's see what Brown and Sarkozy have to say about it:
We also have agreed on a more efficient system for supervision of the financial sector within Europe to better monitor systemic risks...Banks must now hold sufficient capital, ensure liquidity, and reward only genuine value creation and not short-term risk-taking.
This crisis has made us recognize that we are now in an economy which is no longer national but global, so financial standards must also be global. We must ensure that through proper regulation, the financial sector operates on a level playing field globally.
There is an urgent need for a new compact between global banks and the society they serve:
...
A compact that ensures financial institutions cannot use offshore tax havens to negate the contribution they justly owe to the citizens of the country in which they operate—and so builds on the progress already made in ending tax and regulatory havens.
Therefore, we propose a long-term global compact that will encapsulate both the responsibilities of the banking system and the risk they pose to the economy as a whole. Various proposals have been put forward and deserve examination. They include resolution funds, insurance premiums, financial transaction levies and a tax on bonuses.
We have found that a huge and opaque global trading network involving complex products, short-termism and too-often excessive rewards created risks that few people understood. We have also learned that when crises happen, taxpayers have to cover the costs.That's a rather odd way of putting it, isn't it? Sort of like the guy returning home and telling his wife, "I have learned that when I stop at the convenience store, our checking account has to pay for numerous lotto tickets."
I know, I know, none of this is conclusive. It's entirely possible that all these political leaders really have the best of intentions, and they are just misinformed with faulty economic models. I mean, the only way we could ever really know for sure that there is a global elite who are truly plotting for one world government, is if one of them, oh I don't know, published a book and literally admitted it. But that would never happen. I mean, you can't expect, say, David Rockefeller to write the following in his memoirs:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.But if he were to do something like that, then you could stop calling me nuts for thinking there's something to this one-world-government thing, right?
Comments:
Bob,
Hate to lower the standards of the discussion here but, seriously, where does the WSJ draw a line in letting statists publish op-eds calling for implicit violence? I won't go the Hitler route (oh, I think I just did), but what kind of dictatorial maniac wouldn't qualify for a little space in their columns?
How long must every violent plot and scheme be treated as a "reasonable idea", its various "merits" being fully examined before (hopefully) ultimately being rejected?
Can't we just look at most of it and go, "Nah, that's really dumb" and ignore it?
Hate to lower the standards of the discussion here but, seriously, where does the WSJ draw a line in letting statists publish op-eds calling for implicit violence? I won't go the Hitler route (oh, I think I just did), but what kind of dictatorial maniac wouldn't qualify for a little space in their columns?
How long must every violent plot and scheme be treated as a "reasonable idea", its various "merits" being fully examined before (hopefully) ultimately being rejected?
Can't we just look at most of it and go, "Nah, that's really dumb" and ignore it?
chi flat iron
chi hair straightener
chi flat irons
chi hair straighteners
chi hair iron
chi hair irons
chi hair tools
[url=http://www.uggbootscity.com/bailey-button-ugg-boots.html]bailey button ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.uggbootscity.com/bailey-button-ugg-boots.html]ugg boots bailey button[/url]
[url=http://www.uggbootscity.com/bailey-button-ugg-boots.html]bailey button uggs[/url]
chi hair straightener
chi flat irons
chi hair straighteners
chi hair iron
chi hair irons
chi hair tools
[url=http://www.uggbootscity.com/bailey-button-ugg-boots.html]bailey button ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.uggbootscity.com/bailey-button-ugg-boots.html]ugg boots bailey button[/url]
[url=http://www.uggbootscity.com/bailey-button-ugg-boots.html]bailey button uggs[/url]
"I don't know why even some libertarians (and no I'm not even referring to the recent spat) find it so taboo to occasionally remind people that an elite group is quite literally trying to take over the world. "
Because
i) All these theories about New World Order crap are unfalsifiable. If government grows then they're trying to take power, if government shrinks they're lulling us into a false state of security etc.
2) Such explanations don't focus on the rational actions of individuals. In fact, such "explanations" abandon reason entirely, replacing reason with paranoia, nationalism, xenophobia and even anti-semitism.
Because
i) All these theories about New World Order crap are unfalsifiable. If government grows then they're trying to take power, if government shrinks they're lulling us into a false state of security etc.
2) Such explanations don't focus on the rational actions of individuals. In fact, such "explanations" abandon reason entirely, replacing reason with paranoia, nationalism, xenophobia and even anti-semitism.
# posted by 
: December 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
: December 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Anon,
What do theories have to do with this? Bob provided a specific, concrete example of people openly plotting to unify world governmental organizations.
What do theories have to do with this? Bob provided a specific, concrete example of people openly plotting to unify world governmental organizations.
"What do theories have to do with this? Bob provided a specific, concrete example of people openly plotting to unify world governmental organizations."
I can do that too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations
But what you don't need to do is to attribute bad intentions to these "internationalists" or use ambiguous concepts like good and evil.
I can do that too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations
But what you don't need to do is to attribute bad intentions to these "internationalists" or use ambiguous concepts like good and evil.
# posted by : December 11, 2009 at 12:14 PM
: December 11, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Anon,
But what you don't need to do is to attribute bad intentions to these "internationalists" or use ambiguous concepts like good and evil.
Why not? Do you feel 100% confident that you can speak for all of these people and say that not one of them has bad intentions? Maybe some do, maybe some don't, it doesn't matter what they intend to do, they'll fail and they'll make the rest of us worse off because of it.
Good and evil may be ambiguous in certain circumstances but I can say resolutely that if a person schemes to take more control over my life, my rights and my personal finances and choices, they're doing something evil as far as I am concerned.
Great work on the UN link, by the way... I assume you know that "NWO-conspiracy fetishist"-types regularly cite the UN as part of the conspiracy? And I'm sure you realize that, good intentions or bad, the UN is involved in all kinds of interventions, schemes and scandals all over the world in smaller, weaker countries? So, I assume you meant to support Bob's point?
But what you don't need to do is to attribute bad intentions to these "internationalists" or use ambiguous concepts like good and evil.
Why not? Do you feel 100% confident that you can speak for all of these people and say that not one of them has bad intentions? Maybe some do, maybe some don't, it doesn't matter what they intend to do, they'll fail and they'll make the rest of us worse off because of it.
Good and evil may be ambiguous in certain circumstances but I can say resolutely that if a person schemes to take more control over my life, my rights and my personal finances and choices, they're doing something evil as far as I am concerned.
Great work on the UN link, by the way... I assume you know that "NWO-conspiracy fetishist"-types regularly cite the UN as part of the conspiracy? And I'm sure you realize that, good intentions or bad, the UN is involved in all kinds of interventions, schemes and scandals all over the world in smaller, weaker countries? So, I assume you meant to support Bob's point?
"Why not? Do you feel 100% confident that you can speak for all of these people and say that not one of them has bad intentions?"
Ah, OK, because armchair speculation, guessing and conspiracy theorizing is far more a reliable guide to life.
Like I said, you can always cite evil, ignorance, lizardmen, Judaism, Catholicism, the Illuminati, desire for power etc. to account for this sort of behaviour in a very ad hoc way.
Or... you can come up with some sort of a rational explanation of this sort of behaviour.
Ah, OK, because armchair speculation, guessing and conspiracy theorizing is far more a reliable guide to life.
Like I said, you can always cite evil, ignorance, lizardmen, Judaism, Catholicism, the Illuminati, desire for power etc. to account for this sort of behaviour in a very ad hoc way.
Or... you can come up with some sort of a rational explanation of this sort of behaviour.
# posted by : December 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM
: December 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Anon,
I will assume from your answer that you agree it is possible that some of these people have "bad intentions" and that therefore that could be relevant to the discussion.
I'll also allow the possibility that there is a rational explanation (I don't think Bob would deny this for some people, but you'd have to check). Mind sharing what you believe the rational explanation to be in the overwhelming majority of cases?
I will assume from your answer that you agree it is possible that some of these people have "bad intentions" and that therefore that could be relevant to the discussion.
I'll also allow the possibility that there is a rational explanation (I don't think Bob would deny this for some people, but you'd have to check). Mind sharing what you believe the rational explanation to be in the overwhelming majority of cases?
"I will assume from your answer that you agree it is possible that some of these people have "bad intentions" and that therefore that could be relevant to the discussion."
Sure, people have bad intentions all the time though. Simply citing that fact is not an explanation.
Any time you'd like to provide an explanation though, that'd be fine.
Sure, people have bad intentions all the time though. Simply citing that fact is not an explanation.
Any time you'd like to provide an explanation though, that'd be fine.
# posted by : December 11, 2009 at 1:20 PM
: December 11, 2009 at 1:20 PM
"I'll also allow the possibility that there is a rational explanation"
One might hope so. Otherwise you're* back to blaming Jews**.
Which, of course, is a long tradition upheld by the NWO crazies.
*I didn't wish to impugn your character in particular.
**Lizardmen, the Illuminati, Catholics will also fit.
One might hope so. Otherwise you're* back to blaming Jews**.
Which, of course, is a long tradition upheld by the NWO crazies.
*I didn't wish to impugn your character in particular.
**Lizardmen, the Illuminati, Catholics will also fit.
# posted by : December 11, 2009 at 1:24 PM
: December 11, 2009 at 1:24 PM
"An explanation of what?
And what is yours? I believe I already asked you that."
Whatever it is that conspiracy theories purport to explain.
Invoking evil in an attempt to purport to "explain" the move towards "one world government" or the UN or whatever you don't like is similar to explaining the high murder rate in Detroit.
As for how I'd explain it? Ideology, rational irrationality and standard public choice.
And what is yours? I believe I already asked you that."
Whatever it is that conspiracy theories purport to explain.
Invoking evil in an attempt to purport to "explain" the move towards "one world government" or the UN or whatever you don't like is similar to explaining the high murder rate in Detroit.
As for how I'd explain it? Ideology, rational irrationality and standard public choice.
# posted by : December 11, 2009 at 4:43 PM
: December 11, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Anon,
I'm not sure if calling the conspiracists "evil" is necessarily meant to be an explanation but rather an observation about their moral character.
I should think some form of "conspiracy theory" should be a prevalent from of every Austrian's thinking because we accept that "Man acts" and that man acts to improve his own situation. We can look at the various plots and sub-plots, open or secret, and look at these as concrete steps the conspirators are taking to improve their own situation. The point is that because they're operating in the political arena, which is an arena whereby resources are exchanged through use of force and there are clear winners and clear losers, these conspiracies work to harm many and benefit a relative special few who are part of the conspiracy or supporting it.
My personal view of conspiracy is similar to G. Edward Griffin's-- you must accept that either history is an "accident" or that history is a "conspiracy". Conspiracies don't need to be secret or necessarily nefarious in nature to still be harmful to others and of a concerted, "schemeing" nature.
I still don't know what your problem is with invoking evil as an explanation because you admitted earlier that you don't know the motives of all actors and it's possible some of them are motivated by evil, or what might be termed more accurately, "spite." Or perhaps you've never heard of someone purposefully acting in a vindictive manner towards others because of perceived malice or elitist belief?
Whatever the case, you haven't yet demonstrated that evil can not possibly be a motivating factor ("explanation") for any of the actions we see, so you have yet to prove or even make a point. I do grant you are correct that evil is likely not the only or even majoritarian factor.
I'm not sure if calling the conspiracists "evil" is necessarily meant to be an explanation but rather an observation about their moral character.
I should think some form of "conspiracy theory" should be a prevalent from of every Austrian's thinking because we accept that "Man acts" and that man acts to improve his own situation. We can look at the various plots and sub-plots, open or secret, and look at these as concrete steps the conspirators are taking to improve their own situation. The point is that because they're operating in the political arena, which is an arena whereby resources are exchanged through use of force and there are clear winners and clear losers, these conspiracies work to harm many and benefit a relative special few who are part of the conspiracy or supporting it.
My personal view of conspiracy is similar to G. Edward Griffin's-- you must accept that either history is an "accident" or that history is a "conspiracy". Conspiracies don't need to be secret or necessarily nefarious in nature to still be harmful to others and of a concerted, "schemeing" nature.
I still don't know what your problem is with invoking evil as an explanation because you admitted earlier that you don't know the motives of all actors and it's possible some of them are motivated by evil, or what might be termed more accurately, "spite." Or perhaps you've never heard of someone purposefully acting in a vindictive manner towards others because of perceived malice or elitist belief?
Whatever the case, you haven't yet demonstrated that evil can not possibly be a motivating factor ("explanation") for any of the actions we see, so you have yet to prove or even make a point. I do grant you are correct that evil is likely not the only or even majoritarian factor.
"I should think some form of "conspiracy theory" should be a prevalent from of every Austrian's thinking because we accept that "Man acts" and that man acts to improve his own situation. We can look at the various plots and sub-plots, open or secret, and look at these as concrete steps the conspirators are taking to improve their own situation. The point is that because they're operating in the political arena, which is an arena whereby resources are exchanged through use of force and there are clear winners and clear losers, these conspiracies work to harm many and benefit a relative special few who are part of the conspiracy or supporting it."
Ah, yes, those other economists are stumped by conspiracy theories. Perhaps it's that "Men are vegetable" axiom they start from...
Look, everybody knows that people in the government try to enhance their welfare just like people in the private sector. It's been known since Smith and Hume if not before that, so this isn't novel.
The point is that conspiracy theories that explain "one world government" by pointing to evil politicians assume:
i) These guys are all actually really smart,
ii) These guys are all evil,
iii) These guys are really good liars,
iv) That voters habitually elect these people.
Or maybe these people really do believe that global regulation or whatever are good ideas.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time here, if you're going to believe stuff like conspiracy theories that's fine. But it's religion, not science.
Ah, yes, those other economists are stumped by conspiracy theories. Perhaps it's that "Men are vegetable" axiom they start from...
Look, everybody knows that people in the government try to enhance their welfare just like people in the private sector. It's been known since Smith and Hume if not before that, so this isn't novel.
The point is that conspiracy theories that explain "one world government" by pointing to evil politicians assume:
i) These guys are all actually really smart,
ii) These guys are all evil,
iii) These guys are really good liars,
iv) That voters habitually elect these people.
Or maybe these people really do believe that global regulation or whatever are good ideas.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time here, if you're going to believe stuff like conspiracy theories that's fine. But it's religion, not science.
# posted by : December 11, 2009 at 5:27 PM
: December 11, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Anon,
What is your problem?
Why do you keep saying "all"? Nobody has said "all" that's something you keep bringing up. It sounds like somebody hurt you real bad who was a nutty conspiracy theorist who believed it explained "all" behavior and now you're projecting that onto every conspiracy-skeptic you see.
But it's religion, not science.
I define a conspiracy as a purposeful plot to achieve certain ends. I can "conspire" with a friend to order a pizza. A conspiracy doesn't have to be evil or secret (by my definition).
Politicians conspire everyday to increase their own power. You have yet to demonstrate what is religious about "believing" in this reality. Pointing this out is not the same thing as believing every specific theory out there.
I'm not sure if you've read G Edward Griffin's material or not but along with what I said earlier the idea is this: much of what politicians do leads everybody toward a global government, whether they mean to or not. Now, with this being the case, is it more ridiculous to assume there is some kind of design in this ("conspiracy"), or that it's almost wholly accidental?
Keep in mind, the design doesn't have to be evil or even specifically aimed at one world government, it can be aimed at producing stronger institutions at a regional level, but these players always seem to find they've created for themselves problems which are inevitably best solved by unifying their institutions across national boundaries.
If politicians can work within their own national boundaries to expand their power and control, and the geographical space within which they exercise it (take colonialism, for one), is it so "religious" to think that they could make the same kind of plans outside of their borders, with the idea being that they'd have a role in reigning over the international institutions that criss-cross the planet?
I think you're accusing people of things they don't necessarily agree with and reading your own angry bias into things. Enjoy your frustration.
What is your problem?
Why do you keep saying "all"? Nobody has said "all" that's something you keep bringing up. It sounds like somebody hurt you real bad who was a nutty conspiracy theorist who believed it explained "all" behavior and now you're projecting that onto every conspiracy-skeptic you see.
But it's religion, not science.
I define a conspiracy as a purposeful plot to achieve certain ends. I can "conspire" with a friend to order a pizza. A conspiracy doesn't have to be evil or secret (by my definition).
Politicians conspire everyday to increase their own power. You have yet to demonstrate what is religious about "believing" in this reality. Pointing this out is not the same thing as believing every specific theory out there.
I'm not sure if you've read G Edward Griffin's material or not but along with what I said earlier the idea is this: much of what politicians do leads everybody toward a global government, whether they mean to or not. Now, with this being the case, is it more ridiculous to assume there is some kind of design in this ("conspiracy"), or that it's almost wholly accidental?
Keep in mind, the design doesn't have to be evil or even specifically aimed at one world government, it can be aimed at producing stronger institutions at a regional level, but these players always seem to find they've created for themselves problems which are inevitably best solved by unifying their institutions across national boundaries.
If politicians can work within their own national boundaries to expand their power and control, and the geographical space within which they exercise it (take colonialism, for one), is it so "religious" to think that they could make the same kind of plans outside of their borders, with the idea being that they'd have a role in reigning over the international institutions that criss-cross the planet?
I think you're accusing people of things they don't necessarily agree with and reading your own angry bias into things. Enjoy your frustration.
It's logical to expect that people who support government expansion at all costs would not want to stop at a national boarder. They want to go all the way and make one government for the whole world. Why wouldn't they? The honest ones among them even admit it. The rest will admit it when it starts to look more likely. Copenhagen is all about this sort of thing.
moos,
Right, and if you think about socialism, logically, you realize it necessitates world govt for the following reason: socialism can't calculate. Because socialism can't serve consumer-oriented production, it's possible a socialist economy might produce nothing of exchangeable value, while not having the resources within it's own boundaries to satisfy even basic survival needs... unable to trade, it must look outside it's own boundaries to resolve calculational chaos.
Taken more widely, we can see this principle at work in the current financial mess... national govts have created calculational chaos within their own finance systems and risk capital and expertise fleeing to less restrictive/disorderly environments. To control these outflows, they must socialize the entire world with a uniform set of rules. Then, capital will have nowhere to run and no way to avoid their manipulations and arbitrary interventions/redirections of resources.
Post a Comment
Right, and if you think about socialism, logically, you realize it necessitates world govt for the following reason: socialism can't calculate. Because socialism can't serve consumer-oriented production, it's possible a socialist economy might produce nothing of exchangeable value, while not having the resources within it's own boundaries to satisfy even basic survival needs... unable to trade, it must look outside it's own boundaries to resolve calculational chaos.
Taken more widely, we can see this principle at work in the current financial mess... national govts have created calculational chaos within their own finance systems and risk capital and expertise fleeing to less restrictive/disorderly environments. To control these outflows, they must socialize the entire world with a uniform set of rules. Then, capital will have nowhere to run and no way to avoid their manipulations and arbitrary interventions/redirections of resources.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]