All is not LOST - the UN taxing the world?
In DC - the representatives of our fine nation are possibly going to vote on an International treaty called 'The Law of the Sea Treaty' (LOST). Up for debate is where, how, and who administers the open seas. That means lawsuits, fines, and other nasty governmental reaches. LOST was rejected by Regan back in the 80's for several reasons. But now it looks like Bush may be in support of the US signing on.
Problems;;; aplenty. LOST may give the UN the right to tax internationally - something it can NOT do now. LOST will allow anyone to sue a governement for damages caused (percieved or otherwise) to the oceans (KYOTO style) And LOST would be a major step toward UN world government. Think commerce clause but on a world scale.....
Details at NRO . . .
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzQwNmUzOWUwNzljOTZhOGE5OGIxMGI1MmMwZjQ1MWQ=
- ericgl's blog
- 1980 reads
- (Add new comment)
But who owns what?
I will freely admit that I haven't read LOST and know very little about current law in terms of international waters.
But the angle of property rights on the topic begs to have the following questions asked:
- How far out does a nation's property go into the oceans? 200 miles?
- How far down do the rights go? To the core (pie shapes), or 1 mile below the sea bed, or ???
- Once those limits are established, who owns the rest?
Take, for example, the Russians' claim on portions of the arctic seabed (as a potentially rich source of oil), claiming that it's an extension of the Russian mainland? Should we just let them have it, and if not, why not?
property
how have we determined who owns what plot of land, which trees, what lake, pond or stream? why does it have to be states that own property? have we given up on the idea of proprty rghts?
here is an interesting take on the issue.
sovereignty
(Am I capable of not asking a bunch of rhetorical questions in a row?)
haha.
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not when you said the US will always have it's sovereignty. But that is not necessarily true. We have already lost a portion of it to global organizations such as the UN, NATO, NAFTA, etc. And we'll continue to lose it as we delegate power to more centralized, global bureaucrats.
I would not suggest that the US or anyone person or narrow group of people be assigned that authority. Rather, I believe it would best be solved by applying property rights. A strict adherence to property rights is one of the main foundations, if not the foundation, for the prosperity that this county has experienced. We need to recognize that everywhere.
putting that regulatory authority in the hand of a global power like the UN will prove no more efficient that giving the Federal government the authority to regulate industry.
Easy now
The United States will always have its sovereignty, and in this particular case some governmental agency needs to have oversight of the seas.
Are we suggesting that the United States wield that authority? Or are we suggesting that everyone else should be under a global organization's jurisdiction and not the United States? What happens when someone steps on our toes at sea or an oil tanker breaks open off of a US coast?
If it was the other way around, it's very probable that the US would say "Too bad, what are you going to do about it?" and walk away because of our economic and militaristic clout. Is this backlash against some sort of equal protection?
(Am I capable of not asking a bunch of rhetorical questions in a row?)
This is frightening
It essentially gives the UN control of the seas. It would be another devastating blow to the sovereignty of the united states. The fact that Bush is supporting this legislation, demonstrates just how far the Republican base has strayed from likes of Ronald Reagan. As Republicans, we should be disgusted by such a blatant disregard to the sovereignty of our nation.