Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, I have not, and will not, donate any money to provide food for those children. Why? Is it because I lack compassion? No...it's because I know it's only going to make the situation worse in the long run. Until those people figure out their own food supply problem, they are going to have famine and starvation and Save the Children commercials are going to stay on the air. I want them to take responsibility for their own situations and feed themselves.
And having like 1 million starving kids in the region instead of 2 million (I don't know the actual numbers) is somehow going to discourage them from doing that? Are semi-skeletal people with swollen bellies saved from starvation by the provision of food that "they didn't earn" the new welfare queens? Not every social problem and lack of resources can be attributed to the human failure of those who lack them.
It seems to me that the logical extension of the libertarian "personal responsibility" dogma would entail a world where people are discouraged from aiding anyone in need, ever, in the hopes that the less well-equipped will die off and leave us with a race of evolved, hyper-productive supermen. I remember some article I read by Thomas Sowell where he lambasted people who worked in food pantries for the homeless of "rewarding sloth" or some other ridiculous generalization of that sort, turned me off to him very permanently (and to think he used to be a Marxist! I guess radicals tend to stay radical, even when they change the direction of their radicalism.)
Last edited by fishmonger; 01-23-2008 at 11:25 PM..
And having like 1 million starving kids in the region instead of 2 million (I don't know the actual numbers) is somehow going to discourage them from doing that? Are semi-skeletal people with swollen bellies saved from starvation by the provision of food that "they didn't earn" the new welfare queens? Not every social problem and lack of resources can be attributed to the human failure of those who lack them.
It seems to me that the logical extension of the libertarian "personal responsibility" dogma would entail a world where people are discouraged from aiding anyone in need, ever, in the hopes that the less well-equipped will die off and leave us with a race of evolved, hyper-productive supermen. I remember some article I read by Thomas Sowell where he lambasted people who worked in food pantries for the homeless of "rewarding sloth" or some other ridiculous generalization of that sort, turned me off to him very permanently (and to think he used to be a Marxist! I guess radicals tend to stay radical, even when they change the direction of their radicalism.)
I was in Mogudishu in 1985, all the people in town were eating pretty good but I personally saw TONS of grain in bags marked CARE and UNICEF rotting on the dock. All the time the people out in the bonnies were starving to death.. The USAF was doing low speed flybys and kicking pallet loads out the back of C130's but I don't think it helped much............
That seems more the result of a poorly organized or managed delivery system to that region than the "unwillingness to provide for themselves" of the rural poor, however.
That seems more the result of a poorly organized or managed delivery system to that region than the "unwillingness to provide for themselves" of the rural poor, however.
Delivery systems Thats the problem, those countrys don't have the infrastructure to even get the food you send to those who needs it most.
And having like 1 million starving kids in the region instead of 2 million (I don't know the actual numbers) is somehow going to discourage them from doing that? Are semi-skeletal people with swollen bellies saved from starvation by the provision of food that "they didn't earn" the new welfare queens? Not every social problem and lack of resources can be attributed to the human failure of those who lack them.
For the most part, yes, they can. If you are poor, chances are that you made a lot of decisions that led to your being poor. Or you failed to make decisions that would have led you from poverty to wealth.
Now, the starving children situation is slightly different...it not necessarily their fault in that they did not "choose" for us to give them all that food. We gave them the food and their populations grew accordingly. If we just leave them alone, yes, enough of them will die off until they get to the point where their ability to provide food for themselves matches their ability to procreate.
Quote:
It seems to me that the logical extension of the libertarian "personal responsibility" dogma would entail a world where people are discouraged from aiding anyone in need, ever, in the hopes that the less well-equipped will die off and leave us with a race of evolved, hyper-productive supermen. I remember some article I read by Thomas Sowell where he lambasted people who worked in food pantries for the homeless of "rewarding sloth" or some other ridiculous generalization of that sort, turned me off to him very permanently (and to think he used to be a Marxist! I guess radicals tend to stay radical, even when they change the direction of their radicalism.)
If you took it to that extreme, yeah, I can see that. However, "personal responbility" doesn't mean no one ever helps anyone, ever...it just means that it's not the job of the government to help you every time you make a bad choice in life. I doubt you'll find many libertarians (not sure how they became the topic here, but I'll go with it for now) that would advocate abolishing private charities. I don't mind helping people out...I just want to be able to choose who I help and how much I help...I don't want the government stealing money from me at gun point to give to someone else because they are unable or unwilling to help themselves.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions of what fiscal conservatism consists of. I support a balanced budget and I'm a fiscal conservative. I believe the poor can be best served by a government supported jobs program.
And I'm STILL a fiscal conservative.
Each person has his/her own definition of conservatism. IMO, I don't believe that supporting a government mandated redistribution of wealth is very conservative.
That seems more the result of a poorly organized or managed delivery system to that region than the "unwillingness to provide for themselves" of the rural poor, however.
And who is responsible for providing that infrastructure? Me? No...if they don't have the roads, seaports and airports, organization, etc, the blame lies with them. Especially more so in many cases in Africa because colonialism (whatever evil might be attributed to it) actually provided many African nations with these things, but they were quickly destroyed after the colonial powers left.
Compassionate conservative is a complete oxymoron. The archconservatives on this board do not seem to realize that people starve to DEATH and the people starving are overwhelmingly children. The CC seem to believe that feeding innocent children is wrong because the food would only encourage improper habits of sloth and decadence.
This is morally appalling. Compassionate Conservative is just a reframing of the old term of selfish greedy (whatever) and presented as a change on the “I have mine and I am not going to share. Too bad if you weren’t lucky enough to be born in the wealthiest country in the world to parents that could feed you. TS”
I find this way of thinking and behaving contemptible.
Last edited by GregW; 01-25-2008 at 06:20 AM..
Reason: remove formatting notes
I have very wealthy relatives who are able to invest 1 million dollars into 1 small cap bio tech stock- in this family of 'conservatives' I can recall since I was a child how they always took from those less off- and expected everyone to 'feed' their needs and desires.
I give my old clothes and my families to the Salvation Army- they 'sell' their old stuff to consignment shops. I may also add these people for years have cheated on their income taxes as small business owners.
They are racially intolerant, dislike Jews, gays, and others. Their attitude is 'I have mine-get your own'. There has been money in this family for 3 generations.
By the way, the 1 million dollar investment, ended in at least a million dollar loss, the stock lost 70% of its value- this 'Group' all staunch Republicans decided to sue the CEO and the company for damages in this huge loss--their appeal failed twice. The high powered group of attorney's they hired easily cost 250K. I am not gloating over their loss-but in the end what comes around goes around- perhaps these people learned something for the first time in their lives.
These people like many on Wall Street want laissez fair economics when they make millions on the backs of others- when the loose they run and try and utilize the laws the Democrats passed to protect them.
For the most part, yes, they can. If you are poor, chances are that you made a lot of decisions that led to your being poor. Or you failed to make decisions that would have led you from poverty to wealth.
Now, the starving children situation is slightly different...it not necessarily their fault in that they did not "choose" for us to give them all that food. We gave them the food and their populations grew accordingly. If we just leave them alone, yes, enough of them will die off until they get to the point where their ability to provide food for themselves matches their ability to procreate.
"Reduce the surplus population..." sounds really familiar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats the problem, those countrys don't have the infrastructure to even get the food you send to those who needs it most.
