How much should we intervene?

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by Luis G
geez dude, you're the most selfish person i've ever seen.

Why, thank you!

 

[Luis G]

Originally posted by LastLegionary
If you have to steal money from your own people to give to charity, help your own people FIRST. Not some dipshit 5,000km away that I don't know.

Write a letter to your senator

 

[[b]]

Ardsgaine,

I understand your point completely. I didn't say that the government should give away your money in the event of a natural disaster.

The govenment needs to be more self sufficent. If the government brings in its own money, I don't see a problem with helping out in the event of a natural disaster.

 

[ris]

most of the african countries are given aid becasue they are in permanent states of famine [the news stops reporting after a time but they still go on]. that's why money is given.

giving aid at times of natural disaster and crisis is merely treating the effect, not the cause. rebuilding infrastructure and improving countries through aid will inthe long-term prevent famines, hunger and poverty.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by ris
most of the african countries are given aid becasue they are in permanent states of famine [the news stops reporting after a time but they still go on]. that's why money is given.

Not every country over there is suffering from famine, yet they all get aid money from various sources. Yes, they are in a permanent state of crisis, but why? It's because they are run by dictators-- probably the most incompetent bunch of dictators in the history of the world. Not that any dictatorship could ever be a good way to run a country, but there are degrees of badness. Sending aid does nothing but reward these dictatorships for their ineptness. They are spending our aid money to keep themselves in power. By propping them up, we our prolonging the suffering over there and delaying the day when the people of Africa will wake up and realize that dictatorships do not work.

giving aid at times of natural disaster and crisis is merely treating the effect, not the cause. rebuilding infrastructure and improving countries through aid will inthe long-term prevent famines, hunger and poverty.

I agree that giving aid is simply treating the symptom, but lack of infrastructure is not the cause. Lack of freedom is the cause, and freedom requires a certain philosophical foundation. The only way to help them is to give them the right ideas. Thanks to men like Kant, Hegel and Marx, the West is too intellectually crippled to give anyone a leg up philosophically.

 

[Luis G]

Originally posted by Ardsgaine
Not every country over there is suffering from famine, yet they all get aid money from various sources. Yes, they are in a permanent state of crisis, but why? It's because they are run by dictators-- probably the most incompetent bunch of dictators in the history of the world. Not that any dictatorship could ever be a good way to run a country, but there are degrees of badness. Sending aid does nothing but reward these dictatorships for their ineptness. They are spending our aid money to keep themselves in power. By propping them up, we our prolonging the suffering over there and delaying the day when the people of Africa will wake up and realize that dictatorships do not work.

I see your point, and i only tend to agree with the part of don't liking a dictatorship. However, most people are more worried about survival than about politics.

Corruption is a cancer, it will destroy everything and will not let anything grow properly, unfortunately, there's isn't a cure for it, it is everywhere, and believe it or not, it is also in your country too.

I don't find a reasonable solution to this problem, the FMI should put some money there and as usual, ask for results on the money given, and of course, the money back. For those that thinks that you're giving away your money to help other's economy, you're wrong, that money is paid, every cent, is just that it is paid with time, and on a yearly basis.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by
The govenment needs to be more self sufficent. If the government brings in its own money, I don't see a problem with helping out in the event of a natural disaster.

How would the government get this money? Let's save a discussion of proper methods of taxation until another day. I'm assuming that you are saying the government would make money by selling some sort of service, so that the money wouldn't be gotten through compulsion. That's the "government should be run like a business" philosophy that many fiscal conservatives are fond of. The problem with it is that it's impossible to do business with an organization that has a monopoly on the use of force. Do you get a choice about whether you want to buy their service? Do you have any recourse if you don't like the quality of their service, or you believe they have violated their contract with you somehow? The government is there to act as an impartial arbiter between people involved in disputes. When one of the parties to a dispute is the government, then it is no longer impartial.

Trying to do business with the government is like trying to do business with the mafia. If they don't like the way the negotiations are going, they can always pull out their gun.