$35M Aid to Disaster Relief

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many offers of help did we get from foreign countries after the hurricanes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

I heard the French sent over some wine.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]sent wine? I thought they just whined.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
The government takes my money by force, and thus only has the moral right to use it for things that are proper government functions. Charity is not an approprite government function.


[/ QUOTE ]
the government does not take your money by force. it takes it through collective consent and it's authourity as a legitimate government. it is not 'theft' as a lot of posters here seem to think.

why is charity not an approiate government function, if a: those being governed, through democratic proceses, desire and consent to it, and b: it is not unconstitutional?

i think you're saying "i think our government should be designed as such that it is not an appropriate government function" which is a point worth considering (though i disagree)

[HDPM]

I understand it is legal, constitutional, and generally accepted that the "collective" can force me to pay money for stuff like this. However, I am saying it is immoral. No person has the moral right to even cast a vote to force me to pay for stuff like that. I don't recognize collective rights or desires BTW. Only individuals have rights. The fact an excessive number of people vote for something or another doesn't mean they have any moral right to do so. They do have the legal right. The government does in fact take my money by force. Legally exercized force, but force nonetheless. If a person doesn't pay, they are taken at gunpoint by governmental agents to be locked up. A charity has no right to do this. So sure, the government has the constitutional and legal right to tax people, and people have to pay, but don't ignore the nature of taxation by saying a bunch of people vote for it. So what. I think that because tax dollars are taken by force, only the absolute minimum must be taken and put to use for the absolute necessities of government. Clearly there will always be argument about what is necessary, but welfare and charity are not necessary and it's not close.

Tell me what you would do if 51% of the people thought United Way was a neat charity and therefore gave United Way the right to take 50% of your money. When you balk, United Way locks you in a reeducation camp for 10 years and you lose everything you ever earned and your family. Not acceptable. The fact the government does this does not change the moral nature of the transaction, only the legal nature.

I want to make it absolutely clear I am not a tax protester BTW. You have to be an idiot to try to evade taxes. But I do exercise my right to complain about them, and won't give that up. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[bholdr]

fair enough, though your united way example is both unrealistic and an exaggeration.

i personally beleive that morality doesn't really enter into this argument.

[ QUOTE ]
but welfare and charity are not necessary and it's not close.

[/ QUOTE ]

i refer you to my argumets in this post, which i beleive amply explain the necessity of FFFA: non altrustic arguments for FFFA

[busguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many offers of help did we get from foreign countries after the hurricanes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.




[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point ??? WTF ??? Give your freakin head a shake. It is no point at all. In case you didn't realize it, the USA is a 1st world nation. Most 1st world nations are more than prosperous enough to look after themselves in cases of natural disasters.

In this case, we are talking about 2nd and 3rd world nations. These countries do NOT necessarily have the ability to look after themselves without some sort of aid from other countries.

Oh and for the record, helping these 2nd and 3rd world countries is NOT called "charity" as some have chosen to put it, but rather "Humanitary Aid". There is a difference.

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] busguy

[Zeno]

In my opinion, you are missing the whole point and the meaning of Humanitarian Aid. 'Richness' has nothing to do with it.

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

East Timor one of the poorest countries on the planet has given $50K in aid (according to a BBC report I saw on TV) and has given it to Indonesia!!!!! What an interesting and terrific and ironic report.

[mosta]

I didn't bother to read any of the supposed "arguments" or "analyses" of why charity is supposedly irrelevant or immoral or whatever. On the one hand I have the impulse to say that great people and great nations rise up in great acts and great character, and if you don't get that--you're really not worth trying to have it explained to. My second impulse is that I'd rather my tax dollars go to suffering impoverished victims of disaster than fat Bush-voting church-going flyover-state morons (and it's not close), or to a dishonest irrelevant moronic useless war that is killing tens of thousands of people, at least, for nothing. But then I shouldn't talk about spending tax revenue since I already decided I don't intend to participate very much in this government. Whether Bush and Bush-types give a lot, or nothing, it's almost hard to care.