Explaining to a Democrat why we should not give Foreign Aid

[Uriel999]

Me and 2 of my friends got into an argument starting with the Peace Corp and then turning into foreign aid in general. I was trying to explain that we should not give foreign aid through coercion/taxes and that it should be done via private organizations and churches, but they refused to accept that. Interestingly enough, the bartender where we were agreed with me. I also found it interesting, considering me and agnostic was supporting the church roll in society. My friend was arguing that private organizations and churches do not have the resources that our federal government has.

I tried to explain that when we give foreign aid our government expects a return, such as building military bases. He refused to accept that idea because the peace corp is not part of the military. My friend was arguing that foreign nations need our aid (btw he is an Obama supporter) and that we should give it to them, despite me trying to argue about having a balanced budget which we have not had since Andrew Jackson (oh and seriously how did this myth that Clinton gave us a balanced budget come about!) and him previously agreeing we need to get rid of our dept. I also argued that at we need to take care of our people at home before we help other nations. Apparently every American citizen is hunky dory. There are no homeless, their are no destitute and people living in third world conditions here. How do you get the point across to people that we should take care of of your problems at home and we can't bail out the entire world. We are the United States of America, not the NWO.

Sorry for the rant, and I hope somebody can point me towards some helpful information.

 

[Kraig]

Tell him the next time he sees a homeless guy he needs to go rob the richest guy he can find (preferally one that strives to make his living honestly) and give the money to that homeless guy. To help him find a job of course.

That's all he is supporting. Only he wants the government to do the actual robbing part so he can go to bed thinking about what a generous guy he is for voting for the giving part.

 

[Alex Libman]

You give a man a fish, and tomorrow two men show up asking for free fish, and their numbers will keep growing. Some will quit fishing - why should they do the hard work, when you're giving fish away for free? You'll have whole generations of people counting on you for fish instead of learning to fish themselves, and sooner or later your own ability to provide fish for others will diminish (read Atlas Shrugged). The economy collapses.

You give a man a micro-credit loan to take a fishing class, and he has a chance to do well. If he does well, give him another micro-credit loan to buy fishing equipment. Etc. You make money off the loan (to reward your time and risk), the man you've helped makes money, and fish prices go down so all consumers save money. Only the total idiots starve (or depend on charity), but there are typically very few of them, less than 10%. The economy grows.

 

[DamianTV]

Tell him the next time he sees a homeless guy he needs to go rob the richest guy he can find (preferally one that strives to make his living honestly) and give the money to that homeless guy. To help him find a job of course.

That's all he is supporting. Only he wants the government to do the actual robbing part so he can go to bed thinking about what a generous guy he is for voting for the giving part.

Doesnt the government do that already by taxing the crap out of the rich white guy that made his money honestly and doesnt cheat or write off his taxes so the homeless guy has "entitlements"?

 

[Kraig]

Doesnt the government do that already by taxing the crap out of the rich white guy that made his money honestly and doesnt cheat or write off his taxes so the homeless guy has "entitlements"?

Yeah that was my point, and welfare is all the same - forced charity given to people here or forced charity given to people in other countries. Although most people in other countries probably have less guilt for their shitty situations than the bums here who actually had a shot at a free society, forced charity is still stealing at gunpoint.

 

[Uriel999]

god I love you guys! I still don't think those explanations will quite work yet, but then again I think that is the real problem with explaining non-interventionalism is the compassion side, but it seems to be the logical and compassionate philosophy to me...

 

[pinkmandy]

Good luck. The debates I've had using the argument of robbery have never worked. They don't consider it robbery because when one person has more of something the greater good needs, it's fully justified to them. It's okay to force fairness for the little guy. It's preferable, actually, because those who have more wouldn't give enough if they weren't forced. Just ask them. That's what they will say.

If you find something that works, please share with the class.

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Address the inefficiency, wastefulness and corruption inherent with foreign aid. (I believe Congressman Paul touches upon it in his new book).

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Good luck. The debates I've had using the argument of robbery have never worked. They don't consider it robbery because when one person has more of something the greater good needs, it's fully justified to them. It's okay to force fairness for the little guy. It's preferable, actually, because those who have more wouldn't give enough if they weren't forced. Just ask them. That's what they will say.

If you find something that works, please share with the class.

In my experience, moral arguments tend to be less reliable than anecdotes or factual evidence because a person can never be sure if their audience shares a compatible moral compass.

 

[PeterWellington]

Tell him the next time he sees a homeless guy he needs to go rob the richest guy he can find (preferally one that strives to make his living honestly) and give the money to that homeless guy. To help him find a job of course.

That's all he is supporting. Only he wants the government to do the actual robbing part so he can go to bed thinking about what a generous guy he is for voting for the giving part.

Even better, he should take his friend's wallet, that should hit a little closer to home.

 

[Fox McCloud]

when I sought advice here on how to combat a socialist, well...the answer I was given applied here;

"if they're an empirical socialist, it's easy to beat them...if they're a moral socialist, it's impossible".

they weren't saying they were right, they were just saying that if they already think it's morally justified, chances are they won't change their opinion on the matter....and let's not be coy--how many empirical socialists have you honestly met...one needs only to go to the Democratic Underground (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the largest Democrat website on the web), and see that, for the most part, they have no grasp of the economy....heck, with our small forum here (which has shrunk even more since things wound down) we discuss economics more than they do....why? They're moral socialists and understand little about economics.

Larry McDonald (D-Georgia) was one of the greatest Congressman of all time (I'd put him right up there with Ron Paul)...what was unique about him is that he was a Democrat, yet he held a staunch laissez-faire+gold standard ideology in terms of the economy--IIRC he told about the inefficiencies of the food stamp program and how most of the money disappeared into politicians pockets, and the majority of the rest made its way into even more "public" hands....the little that was actually left from this made it's way to two groups of people---those who actually needed the food-stamps and those that made enough to get by, and decided to cheat. It's a shame that Mr. McDonald isn't around to this day--Paul and McDonald could have run for the Presidency in the same year and attempted to take take the party by storm. (What'd be really interesting if this happened is that McDonald got the Dem Nomination and and Paul got the Republican...then they both selected each other as VP...that way, in the general election, it'd be a McDonald/Paul or Paul/McDonald victory...indeed it'd be strange, but America would win no matter what).

Anyway, back on track!

Even if you point out the corruption and inefficiency, you'll still likely lose out to a moral socialist, simply from the fact that he'll fall back on the age-old argument of "well it'd work with the right people in charge"....they probably wont' say this directly, but it'll be insinuated in some form.

It's just like this whole Myanmar thing---I don't think its right to give aid or to use our military to force aid upon them (I don't think the UN should either). But anyway....there's a number of people I talk who who are pretty much socialists/greenies/communists what have you...it amazed me to no end how hypocritical they all were--all/most were not in favor of the War in Iraq, but they were more than fine with forcing aid on another country...there was one that didn't want the US to do so, but the UN to do so, and for the US government to provide item-based aid.

I pointed out his hypocrisy, but he fell back on an argument that you really can't win against (since, once again, it's a moral one) he viewed Iraq purely for oil (which I think it's over currency, personally) and the foreign aid was ok.

so really, Dems or Republicans these days are the same--one supports interventionism on the part of nation-building and control of a region...the other supports nation-building under the disguise of "foreign aid" and to "help" a region....either way, it's interventionism....and in some cases, either party will embraces the other party's position.

If Bush would have stuck to his guns on having a "humble foreign policy" and all the stuff he said in 2000, and he refused to sign the Patriot Act and other atrocities, and only used the military to go after Osama Bin Laden...then I honestly think he would have gone down in history as one of our greatest Presidents in a time of national crisis...sadly, he didn't do this, and I honestly think he had no intention of doing this from the start.

 

[Kraig]

god I love you guys! I still don't think those explanations will quite work yet, but then again I think that is the real problem with explaining non-interventionalism is the compassion side, but it seems to be the logical and compassionate philosophy to me...

Well, you can't force people to think and see the truth, you can only offer it to them. It takes time with most people too. There have been quite a few people I had been arguing with for months and years, it seems you get no where but as it turned out a few of them voted for Paul in the primary. I think the real argument goes on inside their heads after everyone has gone and they are thinking about everything you have said, most people will not want to change under pressure from another but only when they feel sovereign over their own will. Others will simply get a sense of security everytime they hear someone make fun of Ron Paul, never daring to have that argument alone with themselves, but that is what we are up against.

As far as being on the compassionate side, have you ever read The Fountainhead? That book for me described how disgusting pity can be. How welfare takes what should be a happy, free man and turns him into a beggar.

 

[LiveFree79]

Doesnt the government do that already by taxing the crap out of the rich white guy that made his money honestly and doesnt cheat or write off his taxes so the homeless guy has "entitlements"?

HAHAHA LMAO..........honest rich white guy that doesn't cheat on his taxes? Gimme a break. Why do you think the Cayman Islands is BOOMING with offshore bank accounts and investment tax shelters. I guess all those honest, moral, and patriotic 21 year old hedge fund millionaires really care about poor people. Most rich people give a shit about those less fortunate in their own country.........do you really think they are going to worry about giving enough money to charitable organizations to help those less fortunate in other parts of the world. And if you think a majority of rich white people have made their money honestly.............LOL.........wow I wish I saw the world through your rose colored glasses. Or let me put it to you another way.........show me an honest politician and I'll show you an honest corporation.

 

[Imperial]

You guys missed out. Not last year but the year before, policy debate topic was over the US substantially increasing national service.

I am not totally against foreign aid, but I am against the sustained practice of continual aid and using aid for political maneuvering. Even Ron Paul stated in an interview before he would give some small amount of foreign aid in emergencies.

 

[acptulsa]

Address the inefficiency, wastefulness and corruption inherent with foreign aid. (I believe Congressman Paul touches upon it in his new book).

Exactly. If a church (for example) comes over to help (because with no IRS Americans can actually afford to donate to it) they may have to bribe this official and that one. If the president comes bearing gifts, the petty dictator that created the whole mess in the first place is there to greet him and say, "Mr. President, what did you bring me?"

Throw in FEMA keeping ice cubes frozen for three long years after they were needed and you should be o.k.

 

[Uriel999]

when I sought advice here on how to combat a socialist, well...the answer I was given applied here;

"if they're an empirical socialist, it's easy to beat them...if they're a moral socialist, it's impossible".

they weren't saying they were right, they were just saying that if they already think it's morally justified, chances are they won't change their opinion on the matter....and let's not be coy--how many empirical socialists have you honestly met...one needs only to go to the Democratic Underground (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the largest Democrat website on the web), and see that, for the most part, they have no grasp of the economy....heck, with our small forum here (which has shrunk even more since things wound down) we discuss economics more than they do....why? They're moral socialists and understand little about economics.

Larry McDonald (D-Georgia) was one of the greatest Congressman of all time (I'd put him right up there with Ron Paul)...what was unique about him is that he was a Democrat, yet he held a staunch laissez-faire+gold standard ideology in terms of the economy--IIRC he told about the inefficiencies of the food stamp program and how most of the money disappeared into politicians pockets, and the majority of the rest made its way into even more "public" hands....the little that was actually left from this made it's way to two groups of people---those who actually needed the food-stamps and those that made enough to get by, and decided to cheat. It's a shame that Mr. McDonald isn't around to this day--Paul and McDonald could have run for the Presidency in the same year and attempted to take take the party by storm. (What'd be really interesting if this happened is that McDonald got the Dem Nomination and and Paul got the Republican...then they both selected each other as VP...that way, in the general election, it'd be a McDonald/Paul or Paul/McDonald victory...indeed it'd be strange, but America would win no matter what).

Anyway, back on track!

Even if you point out the corruption and inefficiency, you'll still likely lose out to a moral socialist, simply from the fact that he'll fall back on the age-old argument of "well it'd work with the right people in charge"....they probably wont' say this directly, but it'll be insinuated in some form.

It's just like this whole Myanmar thing---I don't think its right to give aid or to use our military to force aid upon them (I don't think the UN should either). But anyway....there's a number of people I talk who who are pretty much socialists/greenies/communists what have you...it amazed me to no end how hypocritical they all were--all/most were not in favor of the War in Iraq, but they were more than fine with forcing aid on another country...there was one that didn't want the US to do so, but the UN to do so, and for the US government to provide item-based aid.

I pointed out his hypocrisy, but he fell back on an argument that you really can't win against (since, once again, it's a moral one) he viewed Iraq purely for oil (which I think it's over currency, personally) and the foreign aid was ok.

so really, Dems or Republicans these days are the same--one supports interventionism on the part of nation-building and control of a region...the other supports nation-building under the disguise of "foreign aid" and to "help" a region....either way, it's interventionism....and in some cases, either party will embraces the other party's position.

If Bush would have stuck to his guns on having a "humble foreign policy" and all the stuff he said in 2000, and he refused to sign the Patriot Act and other atrocities, and only used the military to go after Osama Bin Laden...then I honestly think he would have gone down in history as one of our greatest Presidents in a time of national crisis...sadly, he didn't do this, and I honestly think he had no intention of doing this from the start.

Excellent arguments. He is deffinetely a moral socialist, and has often used the"right people in charge" argument. He also talked how the US was the first to send aid, too bad I forgot it was forced on them. I also tried to point out that in Katrina, it was actually the Canadian government to first respond and not our government which if our federal government is going to intervene in natural disasters I would at least have it done here at home. I still don't want them even doing that...

Oh and Kraig I will look into that book now. I need to pick some things up on Amazon anyways...Thanks, oh and whoever said to take my friends wallet that honestly is a great idea.

 

[Kade]

Me and 2 of my friends got into an argument starting with the Peace Corp and then turning into foreign aid in general. I was trying to explain that we should not give foreign aid through coercion/taxes and that it should be done via private organizations and churches, but they refused to accept that. Interestingly enough, the bartender where we were agreed with me. I also found it interesting, considering me and agnostic was supporting the church roll in society. My friend was arguing that private organizations and churches do not have the resources that our federal government has.

I tried to explain that when we give foreign aid our government expects a return, such as building military bases. He refused to accept that idea because the peace corp is not part of the military. My friend was arguing that foreign nations need our aid (btw he is an Obama supporter) and that we should give it to them, despite me trying to argue about having a balanced budget which we have not had since Andrew Jackson (oh and seriously how did this myth that Clinton gave us a balanced budget come about!) and him previously agreeing we need to get rid of our dept. I also argued that at we need to take care of our people at home before we help other nations. Apparently every American citizen is hunky dory. There are no homeless, their are no destitute and people living in third world conditions here. How do you get the point across to people that we should take care of of your problems at home and we can't bail out the entire world. We are the United States of America, not the NWO.

Sorry for the rant, and I hope somebody can point me towards some helpful information.

A liberal is willing to hear an argument about our conditions here first... always beat in that some here at home have it much worse, and that the government has done very little for them...

 

[Kade]

when I sought advice here on how to combat a socialist, well...the answer I was given applied here;

"if they're an empirical socialist, it's easy to beat them...if they're a moral socialist, it's impossible".

they weren't saying they were right, they were just saying that if they already think it's morally justified, chances are they won't change their opinion on the matter....and let's not be coy--how many empirical socialists have you honestly met...one needs only to go to the Democratic Underground (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the largest Democrat website on the web), and see that, for the most part, they have no grasp of the economy....heck, with our small forum here (which has shrunk even more since things wound down) we discuss economics more than they do....why? They're moral socialists and understand little about economics.

Larry McDonald (D-Georgia) was one of the greatest Congressman of all time (I'd put him right up there with Ron Paul)...what was unique about him is that he was a Democrat, yet he held a staunch laissez-faire+gold standard ideology in terms of the economy--IIRC he told about the inefficiencies of the food stamp program and how most of the money disappeared into politicians pockets, and the majority of the rest made its way into even more "public" hands....the little that was actually left from this made it's way to two groups of people---those who actually needed the food-stamps and those that made enough to get by, and decided to cheat. It's a shame that Mr. McDonald isn't around to this day--Paul and McDonald could have run for the Presidency in the same year and attempted to take take the party by storm. (What'd be really interesting if this happened is that McDonald got the Dem Nomination and and Paul got the Republican...then they both selected each other as VP...that way, in the general election, it'd be a McDonald/Paul or Paul/McDonald victory...indeed it'd be strange, but America would win no matter what).

Anyway, back on track!

Even if you point out the corruption and inefficiency, you'll still likely lose out to a moral socialist, simply from the fact that he'll fall back on the age-old argument of "well it'd work with the right people in charge"....they probably wont' say this directly, but it'll be insinuated in some form.

It's just like this whole Myanmar thing---I don't think its right to give aid or to use our military to force aid upon them (I don't think the UN should either). But anyway....there's a number of people I talk who who are pretty much socialists/greenies/communists what have you...it amazed me to no end how hypocritical they all were--all/most were not in favor of the War in Iraq, but they were more than fine with forcing aid on another country...there was one that didn't want the US to do so, but the UN to do so, and for the US government to provide item-based aid.

I pointed out his hypocrisy, but he fell back on an argument that you really can't win against (since, once again, it's a moral one) he viewed Iraq purely for oil (which I think it's over currency, personally) and the foreign aid was ok.

so really, Dems or Republicans these days are the same--one supports interventionism on the part of nation-building and control of a region...the other supports nation-building under the disguise of "foreign aid" and to "help" a region....either way, it's interventionism....and in some cases, either party will embraces the other party's position.

If Bush would have stuck to his guns on having a "humble foreign policy" and all the stuff he said in 2000, and he refused to sign the Patriot Act and other atrocities, and only used the military to go after Osama Bin Laden...then I honestly think he would have gone down in history as one of our greatest Presidents in a time of national crisis...sadly, he didn't do this, and I honestly think he had no intention of doing this from the start.

I agree with you Fox... to be very honest with you, the majority of Democrats care more about social issues then they do the economy... which means that a economically savvy, socially liberal politician would get their vote.... it is not about moral socialism, as much as it is about solutions to problems they perceive..

I'm not lying about this... most liberals are afraid of the religious whackjobs and the corporations first...

 

[MRoCkEd]

Also watch this:
20/20
Myth: Foreign Aid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZHyspuEEKg

 

[weslinder]

Foreign Aid has destroyed economies, propped up dictators, and increased poverty around the world. Here's a couple of articles:

Cato:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb86.pdf

Kenyan Economist James Shikwati:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Excerpt:

SPIEGEL:
Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...

SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...

Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.

Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.