The Global Watermelon, gimme gimme gimme
Politics of Global Warming in the UN, gimme gimme gimme
The "global warming" and the socialist "occupy" movements are producing a convergence on the international organizations wherein they are asserting that the worlds poor have a right to tax the worlds rich. This idea can be found in the way the EU's Euro problems are being played out, where countries like Greece have decided they were entitled to tax the rich European countries by simply making repeated withdrawals from the pan-European joint bank account that is the Euro. The UK, which did not adopt the Euro out of similar fears has walked away from the table when the discussion on how to save the Euro would have meant giving Greece the ability to formally tax the UK to restore the Euro. Greece has already informally taxed the entire Euro zone through deficit spending.
Anyone who has followed the entitlement debate in the United States will recognize that the proposals in the United Nations are internationalized versions of the Cloward-Priven Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy) from their 1966 article called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in published in the Nation.
This is one of the back sides of "Globalization" since the "global concept" with all the chants of "we are the world" inevitably calls for some global socialism mechanism.
This is the "watermelon" aspect of the "Climate change" movement where it shows itself to be green on the outside and red in the middle.
Just as communism and socialism before this new eco-socialism ultimately pits the people who see themselves as national power brokers against the people who see themselves as international power brokers. The national power brokers see their path to wealth and power by being the arbitrators of a national redistribution, similarly the international power brokers see themselves as gaining power by being the international arbitrators of the redistribution.
They join the club of insurgent ideologies whose elites are trying to assert that they should be the arbitrators of some redistribution of wealth. Lenin and the Bolsheviks made these claims as did the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Islamic revolution and the current Islamists also make this claim. They all claim that they should be the power to decide who has what.
The current budget troubles in the US are in no small part due to the same effects that Cloward and Priven hoped would destroy the US economy by burdening it with the demands of the poor, while also encouraging the poor to not work and simply make demands.
This is what brought down the Soviet Union, when the people of the Soviet Union realized that it was the demands of the poor that were keeping anyone from being able to live a good life unless they were members of the corrupt sectors of the government who were the arbitrators of the distribution of the wealth. And those apparatchiks , themselves realized that they could become more wealthy by owning the wealth outright rather than just skimming off the top.
So here we have a global plan to tax the rich and give it to the worlds poor, with a suitably large brokerage fee taken by the people in charge of the redistribution.
The folly of this idea is not just that if all of the worlds money was taken from everyone and and equally distributed, everyone would end up with just a few coins, nor is it that the worlds poor are exploding not because they are being impoverished by having their money taken from them but because they are born into poverty because the worlds poor have the highest birth rates. It is also proven by the various charities and groups who are currently charged with giving social services and charity to the poor, where upwards of 99% of the money given to these agencies, organizations and groups go to the "administrative costs" of the organization. Even the religious groups (and all religions are the same in this) eat a substantial portion of what they receive and give to the poor only a fraction.
The question of "entitlement" is a substantial one, should a family of 10 living in some desolate village in some third world country be able to tax me living in the United States? I don't think so. I worry however about the current politics in the US because we have political elites in the US like Al Gore who think that they should.
As was discovered in the communist countries, what incentive do I have to do anything if all I work for is just going to be taken away and given to someone who does nothing? The answer is none. So in order to have a system that works, this system of equality that they are proposing can not be allowed, anywhere. Especially since the premise is that in the system produced that some will be more equal than others.
