Comments on: World Government – coming in December?

By: DocBud

DocBud — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:44:11 +0000

I’d rather he used any “spare” money to reduce the debt he has run up on our behalf.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:23:57 +0000

We give 2.5 bln AUD a year to ODA.

I bet every cent of it is wasted. The waste concerns me more than a foreign income transfer. Rudd and Swan should be decent and give every Australian $120 of back taxes instead.

By: DocBud

DocBud — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:09:36 +0000

Let’s not understate what is proposed either. An international body, likely to be made up of more net receivers than givers is to have the powers to take a minimum sum of money from Australia, suggested 0.7% GDP, but range mentioned 0.5% to 1.0%, and give it to developing nations to “adapt to climate change”. Since adaptation is only necessary when the climate chooses to naturally change, much of this money will slosh around in these nations, being creamed off by corrupt officials, politicians and businesses. This 0.7% is over and above the money Australia chooses to give to developing nations to help alleviate poverty.

But wait, there’s more. When Australia misses its emissions targets, which it most assuredly will because Kevvie will offer ambitious targets to prove he is the international man of the moment, this international body of receivers can fine Australia ten times the value of the carbon it has over emitted.

As libertarians, do we not believe that it should be our right to determine where our money goes and what problems it goes to solve (if any), not have government take large amounts of it and give it away?

Also, if we do not believe in global government by an unelected body whose members largely comprise representatives of nations that have undemocratic, unaccountable leaders, isn’t now the time to say so?

Lord Monckton may have gilded the lily a bit, but if not now, at what time do we man the barricades?

By: Ralph Buttigieg

Ralph Buttigieg — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:50:46 +0000

G’day,

John, I’m not very comforted even if its only a small step. I think any move towards the ultimate Big Government is something very lover of liberty needs to oppose.

Ralph

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:56:50 +0000

I don’t think I was over-dramatising. See my last paragraph.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:11:02 +0000

I think Monckton is going a bit OTT here.

Yes, we’ll sign up to a new international treaty… and, yes, to some degree that transfers some power to an international body. And yes, such a process could easily lead to a world government at some stage.

But we’re still a very long way away from that. And this is only another small step. Let’s not over-dramatise.

By: jc

jc — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:54:00 +0000

The casino analogy is just a dressed example of the true and trusted precautionary principle.

By: Damian

Damian — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:53:10 +0000

Reading Rudd’s plea for world government compliance reminds me thematically of the first big US Paulson bankster bailout plea.

The risk of ‘doing nothing’ theme and the horrible selfish audacity of ignoring the clique of government integrated academic socialists and corporate Al Gore scammers fully locked and loaded, ready to ‘help’ us deal with the certain imminent global calamity that the precious United Nations empowered crystal ball computer modeling has innocently spotted just in time.

Rudd also tried to sling some kind of casino gambling analogy at anyone repudiating the world government scam. The casino gambling theme sheds way more light on the insane fake Ken Lay/Al Gore inspired carbon trading ‘market’.

By: Yobbo

Yobbo — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:24:02 +0000

Won’t somebody please think of the children?

By: Michael Sutcliffe

Michael Sutcliffe — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:53:59 +0000

Or just a cock!