Skip to content

What’s really behind the global “we?”

October 11, 2016

Globalization, or rather the political ramifications of it, is in the news a lot right now. It’s even having an effect on our election.

There is the Clinton camp that seems to believe that there should be no borders, and the Trump camp that believes we can have the benefits from global markets without having a new country called “the World.”

Globalization and open borders means different things to different people. How does that one-world thing work anyway? Let’s look at some illustrations..

This headline seems far removed from your daily life.

“W.H.O urges nations to raise taxes on sugary drinks.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) is continuing its campaign against sugar. The latest release calls for all nations to enact a tax on soda, sports drinks and even 100% fruit juice as a way to curb obesity. It coincides with “World Obesity Day, ” a day that celebrates body-shaming.

Conversely it calls for subsidies to support people buying fresh fruits and vegetables.  Presumably only the ones that don’t contain natural sugars, of course. Lemons good, oranges bad. Kale good, corn bad. That sort of thing.

Said subsidies would apparently be paid for with the sugar tax.

Where you stand on the issue of singling out one type of food as the single cause of obesity is, or should be, up to you.

Personally, it wouldn’t make much difference in my life.  I drink plain black coffee.  Well, OK when it’s really cold I might have hot chocolate, but by and large I don’t care if they tax soda at a 100% rate.

Speaking just from my own  personal viewpoint, I also don’t care if you are an anorexic 90 pounds  or need to be weighed on a freight scale. If I know you, your body type isn’t going to affect my feelings toward you one way or another. If I don’t know you, it’s doubtful that anything I may say or think is going to change your habits.

Does that mean I don’t think that you need some help in either of those cases?  No. There is obviously something going on in your life that is the underlying cause for those extremes and it isn’t being caused by sugar.

But do I think the majority of the world should be punished for your choices?

No.

This is the result of a global mindset that seeks to control every human life to fit the ideals of a few.

I’m sure that a shrink has some sort of category that identifies what causes people to behave that way.  Maybe it’s a multi-national god complex, or maybe there’s just a lot of money to be made in finding things to tax.

It’s noteworthy that part of WHO’s rationalization for the sugar tax is that it would bring in a lot of tax revenue.

And there you have the real motivation for many of these causes.

They make some people a lot of money.

A portion of every tax dollar that is collected winds up being stuck to someone’s hands.

Take the Federal goal to have zero traffic deaths by 2046. That involves spending billions upon tens of billions of tax dollars to “improve the technology” that will make driving a spectator sport.

It is endorsed by NHTSA (National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration), a Federal agency whose 610 employees requested $908,000,000 of your tax dollars for FY 2016.

Since NHTSA itself reports that highway deaths went up in 2015, that doesn’t appear to have been a good investment.

Could we have an effect on highway deaths without spending more tax dollars? Sure.

One of the things that would make that goal at least somewhat realistic is to remove all the electronic toys from the cars. Do you hear Sony or Google or Microsoft or any other tech giant saying they will advocate to have cell phones, Bluetooth-enabled devices, on board tablets and displays or any other one of their products banned from installation or use in cars?

No.

Quite the opposite. Let’s build more self-driving, hands-free cars that use even more technology instead.

Maybe we could tax people for leaving their houses. That would surely cut down on traffic deaths, although it wouldn’t do much for worldwide obesity.

Or hey, here’s an idea.  Let’s make cars so expensive that only the top 10% can afford to own one.  On that goal we don’t have too far to go, so it’s the most attainable.

Any time a group or a candidate says “I’m here to help the oppressed” grab your wallet, or at least put an alert on your plastic.

Is it the global “we” or the global “them?”  While humans still come with organic brains, maybe we ought to use ours to answer that question.

From → op-ed

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: