Helping the World's Poor

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"It's not that hard to get food. Millenia before our ancestors discovered fire, they managed to eat."

[/ QUOTE ]



It wasn't hard them because government didn't get in the way. We produce more than enough as it is for all the people in the world to eat. The problem is not production, it's politics.


[/ QUOTE ]


A shining example of why less government is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

As often as not, rebels overpower the government, and deny food. A shining example of how more government can mean more freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because if the rebels overpower the government and deny food, they have become the ipso facto new government of sorts. And that new government is denying food.

Some government is a necessary evil, but minimalist government is best.

All of the greatest evils, the mass slaughters, the greatest sufferings throughout the bloody course of humankind, have been promulgated by governments.

[lastchance]

Because no one has the power do anything else. Government can obviously commit great atrocities, but you're going to win a lot of small pots because of pooled resources. Interstate Highways, Education, Apollo Program, Marshall Plan, etc.

[cookperson]

"It seems to me that in such a case, just "saving lives" might be doing more harm than good, if the population explosion is causing more to suffer and die. Sounds cold, I know, but until underdevelopment is alleviated, maybe "saving lives" in certain regions is vastly overrated. Just something to consider. "

I hear where you are coming from but just consider if the shoe is on the other foot (that's the saying right?). Imagine something bad happens to the US, everyone is dying, imagine your friends are dying, your family is dying, you are dying. Other countries are thinking about giving aid, the "benefits" are not too clear cut though for some of the reasons you mentioned. Do you want these other countries to give you the aid in spite of this? I am betting yes.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"It's not that hard to get food. Millenia before our ancestors discovered fire, they managed to eat."

[/ QUOTE ]



It wasn't hard them because government didn't get in the way. We produce more than enough as it is for all the people in the world to eat. The problem is not production, it's politics.


[/ QUOTE ]


A shining example of why less government is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

As often as not, rebels overpower the government, and deny food. A shining example of how more government can mean more freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because if the rebels overpower the government and deny food, they have become the ipso facto new government of sorts. And that new government is denying food.

Some government is a necessary evil, but minimalist government is best.

All of the greatest evils, the mass slaughters, the greatest sufferings throughout the bloody course of humankind, have been promulgated by governments.

[/ QUOTE ]There is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. If the government had been powerful enough in the first example, the rebels never would have taken control and starved people. This is why the goal of all political theorists is to create a "just" government, and not a small government.

You simply cannot explain away situations like this with a one-liner. It's borderline retarded.

Also, you seem to not understand that not taking action is an action in and of itself. I would argue that more people have suffered because of the inaction of people who had the power to stem suffering than people have suffered because of the deliberative action of others.

One is just more sensational than the other, and that's why it stands out in your mind.

Example: Would it have been better if the U.S. and its allies had governments that were as small as possible during the Second World War? Would that have been the best plan to stop "evil"?

[cookperson]

"Also, The US government has no place in these efforts. If citizens want to help poor starving people in other countries they can(and do) send money through charities. The taking of money and sending it to other people without consent is theft."

A lot of the people are strugglign in poverty BECAUSE of us and what we've done. European countries colonialism in the Middle East and Africa has wreaked havoc there. In Latin America when a country starts putting through popular reforms to benefit the people we overthrow the leader and put someone in who does what we tell them to do. Now that we've stolen all their wealth, they are starving and you say we have no responsibility to help them?

You say that it is stealing for the government to take your taxes and give it to these people to help them live, that has some logic to it, but where is your compassion? They are people just like you, just unlucky to be born in the wrong place. Aid that would allow them to live would take just a tiny percent of your income which you might use to buy a new shirt.

Let's ignore that argument, and altruism also for another minute. A lot of the world is poor, we're really rich and they're really poor but some of the poor countries have weapons. This creates instability. Instability is very dangerous and in the long run hurts us. Also, by helping these countries develop in the future they will be able to trade with us and everyone will prosper. This argument is intuitive and should stand alone as a reason for aid.

[andyfox]

Sometimes. Sometimes better government is better.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Grey,

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you seem to not understand that not taking action is an action in and of itself. I would argue that more people have suffered because of the inaction of people who had the power to stem suffering than people have suffered because of the deliberative action of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heartily disagree.

[ QUOTE ]

Example: Would it have been better if the U.S. and its allies had governments that were as small as possible during the Second World War? Would that have been the best plan to stop "evil"?

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm saying federal governments should best be very limited in their duties and purview. One of those necessary duties is of course military. I'm not arguing for a tiny, ineffective military.

[MMMMMM]

Hi cookperson,

I agree; the closer to home the more we naturally feel like aid should be made.

Note also please that there is a fundamental difference between the situation you describe and that which I outlined: I am not talking about a natural disaster or something like that (example: tsunami), but rather a region where the overpopulation is a great contributing factor to the misery, starvation and disease. Those things combined with a sky-high birthrate could mean that just "saving lives" might be not only useless but possibly even counterproductive. I'm not saying it would be; only that it might be. It's something to consider.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes. Sometimes better government is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Andy. And sometimes too, worse government is worse;-) And sometimes more government is better or worse, and so too with less government.

The point I'm trying to make is that usually less government is better. However I do agree with the need for at least a minimal federal government--such as outlined in a sparse interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying federal governments should best be very limited in their duties and purview. One of those necessary duties is of course military. I'm not arguing for a tiny, ineffective military.

[/ QUOTE ]So do you think people would suffer less if a government wasn't able to limit monopolies? If education wasn't publicly funded? I'm glad you realize the importance of protecting the people in one aspect.

Another Adam Smith follower believing in the invisible hand of capitalism who has never actually read any of his books?

Where do you think government is too large? Should I be able to sell my house in the middle of the city as a landfill area?

It seems the only place your theories are being put into practice is small African nations, and we know how well that's going. At least Socialists have some very successful countries to point to.