Should every person on Apolyton feel extremely guilty?

[Ned]

Neo-colonialism?

[Pekka]

Ned, I don't know. Maybe. But not like the last time. We should keep the priority in the locals and their well being.

[Ned]

Pekka, yes. Iraq may be a prototype where the world as a whole works to make a better place, a better country.

[Pekka]

Ned, maybe.. maybe. I don't know if we could directly copy that for our doctrine, but something like that. I agree.

[OliverFA]

mcleod... Why are you writing this? Why you even have a computer? You should have sold it and donated to third world. You are guilty.

Every single person in this world has the right to seek their joy and happiness, as long as they don't hurt any other in the process. For that single reason, I have all the right not to sell my beloved car.

But even more important, your philosiphy is wrong. Once the "rich" people has "shared" all their wealth they lose all the chance to generate more wealth, research, development, prosperity... They become just like the people they were trying to "help".

What is truth is that it would be convenient for the people who has achieved a reasonable level of hapiness to WILLINGLY devote a part of their time and effort helping others to achieve hapiness. But sacrifying your own joy. That's not acceptable. Unless you achieve hapiness by selling everything you have and giving it to third world countries, of course.

[Thorn]

Why don't I just kill everyone then no one would feel guilty, there solution solved. No murders no starving, no dying, because there are no people! No People = No Problem.

[NeOmega]

I have considered this before, but I do not feel guilty.

1) YOu can go ahead and go to India and try to help, then you will see how helpless you are. I have a hard time keeping myself fed honestly, I don't know how I could possibly help someone else. I only pull in about 8-900 a month, and cost of living is high.
If I went to India, I would just end up starving like all the rest.

I consider myself a peasant. A worthless commoner. It is not the position I dreamed of in school, but it does have it's perks.

[Zero]

Originally posted by OliverFA
Every single person in this world has the right to seek their joy and happiness, as long as they don't hurt any other in the process. For that single reason, I have all the right not to sell my beloved car.

Such rights do not exist.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

The question is will donating these good or services actually get to the people who need them?

Examples:
American charities send tons of food to the starving Ethiopians, which is immeditely torched and destroyed by the Ethiopian governtment which had worked really hard to starve the people into submission.

American food companies work for years to get the right to sell food in India. The India Legislative Body bans them from bringing in the food because they would rather starve than have food thats not 100% nutritional perfect.

The US Government gives several herds of livestock to N Korea for them to breed and raise the livestock for food. The North Korean government butcher every single animal and ships the meat to its front line troops and the whole country is starving two days later.

Eventually you get to tired of wasting effort on morons who adamantly refuse to take assistance. Darwin wasn't too far off for some of these people, they're starving for a reason, natures taking them out.

[el freako]

All of your above examples are of giving money (or resources) to third world governments.

Why not give money to private charities that support the third world?

Things like micro-credit schemes in Bangladesh, or research into a cheap malaria vaccine or even supporting a free-trade organization that lobbies for the elimination of the rich world's trade barriers on things like agriculture and textiles.

Most foreign aid would go much furthur if these sorts of things were targeted - but they are usually not.
This is because the prime reason for aid (especially American aid but all countries are guilty of this) is to influence the government of the recepient country. and usually a secondary reason is to subsidize the production of domestic industries (much aid is 'tied' to buying certain goods from the donor country).



On the original point.

I belive that equality should be striven towards, but that it should be equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.
This would mean investing in the things I mentioned like free trade, health and enabling more of the people of the third world to access their capital (most can't as the legal systems work against them).

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Should every person on Apolyton feel extremely guilty?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
They could sell everything they have, work a lot, and donate everything they earn to people in third world countries that are dying of malnutrition or lack of medicine. If they did this, they'd be saving lives. However, no one does this.

Well, I didn't do that, either. But I am an Oxfam Partner (that means I make a regular donation every month), and I do volunteer work in a couple of non-profit organisations.

Does that count?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by el freako
All of your above examples are of giving money (or resources) to third world governments.

No their not. The first one was an example of charities giving food to people. The government came and seized the goods and then destroyed them.

And in all three you would have to illegally smuggle in the food to help the people.

[el freako]

Ok, granted on the first example.

On the second, India has not had a major famine for 30 years (despite a massive failure of the harvest 15 years ago).
Would the same American Food companies be as willing to open the US market to foreign food? I doubt it.
I think that your second example is not an example of aid at all but an example of protectionism.

The third example is of tied aid, the US specified what the aid should be used for - however if you give a starving country something that will be usefull for the future (and remember that meat provides less calories than the fodder used to make it) why are you surprised if short term actions triumph over medium/long term ones.

You seem to be coming across as someone who does not favor any aid to the third world, please tell me it ain't so

[JohnT]

I am President of two companies with a total of 8 employees (including myself) and a fair number of contractors. My 8 employees have a total of 28 family members depending upon them for some portion of their incomes (in a couple of cases, the only portion). It is my responsibility to make sure that payroll is met, that new clients are developed, that invoices are paid, etc. It is my goal to increase our business so that in time I will be responsible for dozens or hundreds of employees and their families.

So do I feel guilty? Hell no: I'm already doing my share.

[David Floyd]

The moral course of action is to act in one's own self interest, without violating the rights of another.

So, the quick answer is "Absolutely not", followed by the very reasonable question of "why should I help others at the expense of my own interests?".