A World Tax? Keep Your Eyes on the Internet

The United Nations is finally moving toward the creation of a world tax:

"No one should live below a certain income level," stated Milos Koterec, President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. "Everyone should be able to access at least basic health services, primary education, housing, water, sanitation and other essential services."

These services were presented at the forum as basic human rights equal to the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The money to fund these services may come from a new world tax.

May come from a world tax?  Try will come from a world tax.  When the internet was in its infancy -- actually, it's still in its infancy, but it's growing like gangbusters -- I used to tell my strategy students at the University of Virginia to keep their eyes on the internet.  At the time, our elected officials had decided not to tax purchases made over the internet to permit it to grow unhindered by cumbersome government restrictions, specifically taxes. 

I told my students that one day, governments around the world would demand the creation of an internet tax to fund various things such as a global welfare system like the one that we have in the United States and a global police force/army with enforcement powers.  The internet is the perfect vehicle to fund such programs because it's global in nature and it's easily accessible to anyone with a computer or a smartphone no matter where he or she lives.

What does that mean in practical terms?  It means that we are moving toward a global government with teeth.  By that I mean a global political body with taxing and enforcement powers.  As things stand now, the U.N. is a paper tiger because it depends on the goodwill of governments around the world to operate, but if a global governing authority had direct access to a substantial tax revenue stream, things would change with lightning speed.

That's where the internet comes in.  By keeping their hands off the internet, our elected officials left the door open for some group (i.e., the U.N. or some other global organization) to claim the authority to use its tax revenue-generation potential.  That day has arrived.  When our elected officials decide that it's time to give the U.N. or any other global group taxing authority, said group will go after the internet with reckless abandon, and the world as we know it will change forever.

In effect, we are in the early stages of development of another layer of government -- the layers being local, state, federal, and now global.  The global level of government will be responsible for promulgating and enforcing global edicts/laws.  When that happens, the concept of "sovereign nation" as we know it will change completely.  Presently, nations have the right to protect and defend their borders and to make laws within their borders without regard for laws in other nations to protect their national security.  That will change.

Under the scenario that I envision, nations will be like states in the United States, for example.  States have constitutional rights in our representative republic, and the federal government can't overstep its bounds, but if a state decides that it wants to enforce segregation policies, for instance, the federal government can intervene by sending in the National Guard or the Army to prevent from happening anything that it doesn't want to happen.  That actually occurred during the civil rights movement in the U.S.  I'm not arguing that states should be allowed to enforce segregation.  I'm simply using it as a real-world example.

Today, global governance is done on an ad hoc basis.  It requires the U.N. to win unanimous support from the Security Council before taking any significant action and then to raise the money to do whatever the U.N. proposes to do.  That prevents a lot of mischief, since getting a unanimous Security Council vote is difficult, and raising money is even harder.  Under the governing system that I have in mind, a Security Council resolution will automatically mean that enforcement is on its way if "sovereign nations" don't abide by U.N. rulings.

If this seems far-fetched to you, I urge you to think again.  It can happen, and it will happen unless steps are taken to prevent it from happening.  While President Clinton was in office, he subjugated the U.S. to the U.N. in the Bosnian War and met virtually no resistance from Congress.  President Bush tried to win U.N. support for the second Iraq War but was unsuccessful, so he cobbled together a group of nations willing to join us in our fight.  It was a form of vigilante justice at the global level.

Under the system that I think is developing, President Clinton's actions would be regarded as legal, and President Bush's actions would be seen as illegal and would expose the U.S. to intervention by a global governing authority.  If the U.N. or any other global organization has direct access to a reliable tax revenue stream, it could move to prevent the U.S. or any other nation from taking actions that it deems to be in its national security interest if the global organization believes otherwise. 

That's why elections matter, especially presidential elections.  If we haven't learned anything else from President Obama, we should have learned this: any president can circumvent Congress to do just about anything he or she wants to do, and Congress isn't likely to do anything about it.  President Obama has made ignoring Congress an art form.  He has changed life in the United States in ways that are just now becoming evident, and he has done it without the approval of Congress or the American people.

The stakes in the global change process to which I am referring in this article are much higher than anything that we've witnessed so far.  That's an important reason why I'm convinced that we can't afford to re-elect President Obama.  By 2016, when the next presidential election is held, life in the United States as we know it may already have been irreversibly changed.  We shouldn't allow that to happen.

Neil Snyder is a chaired professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.  His blog, SnyderTalk.com, is posted daily.  His latest book is titled If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You're Not a Racist, You Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You're Not an Idiot.

The United Nations is finally moving toward the creation of a world tax:

"No one should live below a certain income level," stated Milos Koterec, President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. "Everyone should be able to access at least basic health services, primary education, housing, water, sanitation and other essential services."

These services were presented at the forum as basic human rights equal to the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The money to fund these services may come from a new world tax.

May come from a world tax?  Try will come from a world tax.  When the internet was in its infancy -- actually, it's still in its infancy, but it's growing like gangbusters -- I used to tell my strategy students at the University of Virginia to keep their eyes on the internet.  At the time, our elected officials had decided not to tax purchases made over the internet to permit it to grow unhindered by cumbersome government restrictions, specifically taxes. 

I told my students that one day, governments around the world would demand the creation of an internet tax to fund various things such as a global welfare system like the one that we have in the United States and a global police force/army with enforcement powers.  The internet is the perfect vehicle to fund such programs because it's global in nature and it's easily accessible to anyone with a computer or a smartphone no matter where he or she lives.

What does that mean in practical terms?  It means that we are moving toward a global government with teeth.  By that I mean a global political body with taxing and enforcement powers.  As things stand now, the U.N. is a paper tiger because it depends on the goodwill of governments around the world to operate, but if a global governing authority had direct access to a substantial tax revenue stream, things would change with lightning speed.

That's where the internet comes in.  By keeping their hands off the internet, our elected officials left the door open for some group (i.e., the U.N. or some other global organization) to claim the authority to use its tax revenue-generation potential.  That day has arrived.  When our elected officials decide that it's time to give the U.N. or any other global group taxing authority, said group will go after the internet with reckless abandon, and the world as we know it will change forever.

In effect, we are in the early stages of development of another layer of government -- the layers being local, state, federal, and now global.  The global level of government will be responsible for promulgating and enforcing global edicts/laws.  When that happens, the concept of "sovereign nation" as we know it will change completely.  Presently, nations have the right to protect and defend their borders and to make laws within their borders without regard for laws in other nations to protect their national security.  That will change.

Under the scenario that I envision, nations will be like states in the United States, for example.  States have constitutional rights in our representative republic, and the federal government can't overstep its bounds, but if a state decides that it wants to enforce segregation policies, for instance, the federal government can intervene by sending in the National Guard or the Army to prevent from happening anything that it doesn't want to happen.  That actually occurred during the civil rights movement in the U.S.  I'm not arguing that states should be allowed to enforce segregation.  I'm simply using it as a real-world example.

Today, global governance is done on an ad hoc basis.  It requires the U.N. to win unanimous support from the Security Council before taking any significant action and then to raise the money to do whatever the U.N. proposes to do.  That prevents a lot of mischief, since getting a unanimous Security Council vote is difficult, and raising money is even harder.  Under the governing system that I have in mind, a Security Council resolution will automatically mean that enforcement is on its way if "sovereign nations" don't abide by U.N. rulings.

If this seems far-fetched to you, I urge you to think again.  It can happen, and it will happen unless steps are taken to prevent it from happening.  While President Clinton was in office, he subjugated the U.S. to the U.N. in the Bosnian War and met virtually no resistance from Congress.  President Bush tried to win U.N. support for the second Iraq War but was unsuccessful, so he cobbled together a group of nations willing to join us in our fight.  It was a form of vigilante justice at the global level.

Under the system that I think is developing, President Clinton's actions would be regarded as legal, and President Bush's actions would be seen as illegal and would expose the U.S. to intervention by a global governing authority.  If the U.N. or any other global organization has direct access to a reliable tax revenue stream, it could move to prevent the U.S. or any other nation from taking actions that it deems to be in its national security interest if the global organization believes otherwise. 

That's why elections matter, especially presidential elections.  If we haven't learned anything else from President Obama, we should have learned this: any president can circumvent Congress to do just about anything he or she wants to do, and Congress isn't likely to do anything about it.  President Obama has made ignoring Congress an art form.  He has changed life in the United States in ways that are just now becoming evident, and he has done it without the approval of Congress or the American people.

The stakes in the global change process to which I am referring in this article are much higher than anything that we've witnessed so far.  That's an important reason why I'm convinced that we can't afford to re-elect President Obama.  By 2016, when the next presidential election is held, life in the United States as we know it may already have been irreversibly changed.  We shouldn't allow that to happen.

Neil Snyder is a chaired professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.  His blog, SnyderTalk.com, is posted daily.  His latest book is titled If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You're Not a Racist, You Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You're Not an Idiot.