Why governments should not give foreign aid

[natedogg]

If we agree it's ok for govt to play the foreign aid game with our money, we now agree to be complicit in supporting evil and that's the bottom line.

By giving foreign aid we concede that the government knows better than we do how to distribute our charitable givings. At the moment they have decided we should give money to tsunami aid and who can argue with that? Sounds great.

Next week they may give money to Nicaraguan right-wing death squads to buy weapons and all of the sudden you want to complain about it? Too bad. You've already decided it's ok for the government to decide for you how much money
you'll give away and who you'll give it away to. But all of the sudden you want to second guess things after you scoffed at those who complained about fundin X or Y last week?

Sorry, you must support the Nicaraguan death squads and shut up about it, hypocrite.

That's why they shouldn't give anything away at all. Leave it up to each individual.

When the government takes my money to give it away, what is really going on is that my neighbors my fellow citizens have decided to determine what level of charity I give and who I will give it to. This is NOT an argument against taxation in principle. It's about the limits of what government should tax FOR.

I know it sounds terrible to argue against giving aid to tsunami victims but that's not actually what I'm arguing. I'm all for giving aid to tsunami victims and I plan to give something myself. I'm against the process we use today because it forces all of us to take part in funding evil as well as good.

Some might say "if we leave it up to private individuals they won't necessarily give as much as is needed". Not only do governments ALSO frequently not give enough aid where needed, but I'd rather see a world where there's a chance that individuals will not give enough money on their own to good causes than in a world where it's a guarantee we all give money to evil causes against our will.

natedogg

[andyfox]

"By giving foreign aid we concede that the government knows better than we do how to distribute our charitable givings. At the moment they have decided we should give money to tsunami aid and who can argue with that? Sounds great.
Next week they may give money to Nicaraguan right-wing death squads to buy weapons and all of the sudden you want to complain about it? Too bad. You've already decided it's ok for the government to decide for you how much money
you'll give away and who you'll give it away to."

Your argument reduces itself to an argument against government itself. We decide who our governors will be but we are not required, once we make that decision, to agree with 100% of what they do.

The Reagan administration gave money to the rightists in Nicaragua not because they saw them as evil, but because they saw them as good. I think they were wrong. But intelligent people with good intentions thought otherwise. We're in Iraq now, according to the administration, to defeat evil-doers. Nobody is against defeating evil-doers; where we have disagreements is over how to best accomplish it. We give our government the power to make decisions on our behalf and we have options when they do something with which we disagree.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
"By giving foreign aid we concede that the government knows better than we do how to distribute our charitable givings. At the moment they have decided we should give money to tsunami aid and who can argue with that? Sounds great.
Next week they may give money to Nicaraguan right-wing death squads to buy weapons and all of the sudden you want to complain about it? Too bad. You've already decided it's ok for the government to decide for you how much money
you'll give away and who you'll give it away to."


[/ QUOTE ]
this is a good point. there is, however, recourse for citizens that feel that their leaders have misapproiated FFFA; vote them out of office. and i don't really think it's saying that the gov knows better, only that the gov is more conveinient, and has an infrastructure in place to give that aid.


[ QUOTE ]
When the government takes my money to give it away, what is really going on is that my neighbors my fellow citizens have decided to determine what level of charity I give and who I will give it to.

[/ QUOTE ]
imo, it is a collective, group descision making process, that, because of our democratic processes, you have taken part in.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm against the process we use today because it forces all of us to take part in funding evil as well as good.

[/ QUOTE ]
i hadn't thought of it that way. very interesting. i won't completly agree, but i will consider it.



thanks for the post natedogg.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
If we agree it's ok for govt to play the foreign aid game with our money, we now agree to be complicit in supporting evil and that's the bottom line.

By giving foreign aid we concede that the government knows better than we do how to distribute our charitable givings. At the moment they have decided we should give money to tsunami aid and who can argue with that? Sounds great.

Next week they may give money to Nicaraguan right-wing death squads to buy weapons and all of the sudden you want to complain about it? Too bad. You've already decided it's ok for the government to decide for you how much money
you'll give away and who you'll give it away to. But all of the sudden you want to second guess things after you scoffed at those who complained about fundin X or Y last week?

Sorry, you must support the Nicaraguan death squads and shut up about it, hypocrite.


[/ QUOTE ]
This argument is moronic. Any idiot can see the difference between giving tsunami aid, and giving aid to Nicuaragan death squads (which they have already DONE, and the public has already condemned). They publicize one event and not the other. Guess which one they decide to publicize. If the American people could not change the policy of giving aid to Nicuaragan death squads, then the government would not try to keep a secret.
[ QUOTE ]
That's why they shouldn't give anything away at all. Leave it up to each individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
When the government takes my money to give it away, what is really going on is that my neighbors my fellow citizens have decided to determine what level of charity I give and who I will give it to. This is NOT an argument against taxation in principle. It's about the limits of what government should tax FOR.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then, we should obviously try to improve our government.

[ QUOTE ]
I know it sounds terrible to argue against giving aid to tsunami victims but that's not actually what I'm arguing. I'm all for giving aid to tsunami victims and I plan to give something myself. I'm against the process we use today because it forces all of us to take part in funding evil as well as good.

Some might say "if we leave it up to private individuals they won't necessarily give as much as is needed". Not only do governments ALSO frequently not give enough aid where needed, but I'd rather see a world where there's a chance that individuals will not give enough money on their own to good causes than in a world where it's a guarantee we all give money to evil causes against our will.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
This now, is an actual argument. The government is not always accountable for what it does, and in something like tsunami aid, maybe you would rather have people accountable for themselves.

[natedogg]

Lastchance,
I guess I didn't make myself clear in that it's the principle of ceding judgment to the govt that is bad.

I'm not arguing that tsunami relief is a bad thing on par with right wing death squads, I'm arguing that if you cede the judgment on tsunami relief to the govt you also cede the judgment on right wing death squads. (and that is exactly why it occurred) Better to not let the govt get involved in the first place*.

And furthermore, your statement about tsunami relief being obviously a good thing only proves my point. It's so obvious to you that you don't even question the notion of taking my money to pay for it. Maybe I am opposed to it on some moral grounds. If you want to dismiss my grounds then you have no right to complain if others dismiss your opposition to funding right wing death squads.

That's the whole point.

I'm assuming the main argument FOR govt aid is that the aid wouldn't appear without govt compelling it of us. If our govt didn't give away our money, nobody would give choose to do so on their own.

I believe that is false. I also believe that even if it were true it's better to have a govt that respects individual beliefs in such matters. The effects of such an approach to govt would be far-reaching, far more than just avoiding foreign aid to unsavory purposes. (we don't have such a govt)

Is there some other compelling reason for our government to engage in foreign aid besides the concern that individuals might not contribute "enough" (whatever that is)? Honest question, cause I can't think of a reason other than as bribes for goodwill from antagonistic regimes, and we've seen how great that works out for us over the past decades haven't we?

And then there's the corruption involved and no accountability for it from govt. Private organizations that compete for donations are FAR more efficient in their aid. This is a more pedestrian reason to eschew govt foreign aid but valid nonetheless.

Relevant Michael Badnarik quote: "we have foreign aid programs that force the poor in rich countries to give money to the rich in poor countries". Too true.

natedogg

*As Andy pointed out, this could be used as an argument against all govt, but that is making the same mistake as the hardcore libertarians: taking the principle too far. It's perfectly realistic to apply that principle to most or even all non-essential/non-protective aspects of govt.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
but that is making the same mistake as the hardcore libertarians: taking the principle too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. Funding the CIA is equally as relevant to your argument about government spending your money. How do you know that the agency uses your money as you would? You don't. You trust that they do.

You are either for taxation and the subsequent spending, or you aren't.

Tuco.

[lastchance]

Why let the government spend the money at all then? If you let them make their decision about spending money on police, then you let them assassinate people.

That's the gist of your argument. Everything's a slippery slope.

We need to hold the government accountable for it's actions. Maybe we're stealing money, but it's a helluva lot more effective way to pool money than it would be otherwise.

Hell, the government has the right to detain/kidnap you. Who gave them the right to do that? They can kill you for just killing someone else.

The real solution is government accountability.

Under any government, you have to give up rights/privileges. You're not allowed to do everything you want, and you have to play by their rules.

You give up these rights for protection, and for EV. Since you're so fond of going back to the founding fathers, go read about John Locke and his ideas about the social contract.

[MMMMMM]

Not everything is not a slippery slope regarding the powers of government, because of the U.S. Constitution which limits the powers of government.

Is there anywhere in the Constitution that which gives the government the right to raise money to send overseas for foreign aid? I would seriously doubt that would be included under the general welfare and common good clause (as would not probably many other things the federal government currently spends on).

Have you a link for a good short summary of Locke (whom I have not read)?

[nicky g]

"I'm not arguing that tsunami relief is a bad thing on par with right wing death squads, I'm arguing that if you cede the judgment on tsunami relief to the govt you also cede the judgment on right wing death squads. (and that is exactly why it occurred) Better to not let the govt get involved in the first place*. "

No. It is perfectly reasonable to call for certain legal and moral restrictions on foreign aid, such as not giving money to support death squads of any nature.

[ACPlayer]

You are arguing against all government. The same arguments can be made against police, military, and any other spending.

Like it or not you live in a community.

Like it or not you give power to the government every time you vote.

Like it or not the community is getting bigger than just the United States.