Helping the world

[nickcoons]

People may have moral obligations. Things don't. The nation is a thing. Only people can help in Darfur, or when a catastrophic tsunami hits the southern coast of Asia. If Hurricane Katrina taught us anything it is that private individuals are more capable of organizing themselves to respond to a massive human catastrophe than are the people working in a government bureaucracy. Why should we regard ourselves, collectively, as any more virtuous if our government confiscates our money and organizes its agents to do something about Darfur, than if private citizens organize themselves and their own money to do something? When we speak of nations or governments acting, we are speaking metaphorically. People act, sometimes in concert. And, I think it is true, in general, that private individuals act more efficiently and effectively than people working within a government. The easiest way for "Save Darfur" to waste their $15 million is to spend it in the U.S. trying to get "the government" to act. Unless the Congress declares war (see, there I go), rather, unless a majority of the members of Congress vote to declare war, in response to some foreign turmoil, our military, that is, the members of our military acting in concert, has no business intervening.

Completely agreed!

What I'm looking for, if anyone has it, is the private, non-government solution. Someone already offered the "buy a ticket, go there, fix it yourself" option, which is probably a rough outline how one would start. I understand this is complex, and I think Corydoras is correct when he says that you can't change oppressive foreign governments until you change the culture that allowed them come to power.

So perhaps that's my argument with pragmatics; to unravel their false notion that we can just send in our military and everything will be fine.

 

[ClassicalLiberal]

Also, we need to recognize that sometimes there is no clean, bloodless solution that can be brought about by outside forces.

Here in the good ol' U.S. of A our "solution" to slavery and the question of secession was to slug it out in one of the most gawd awful wars witnessed up to that point in human history. I'm not sure we would be better off now if the French, British, et. al. jumped in to "solve" our problem.

 

[CelestialRender]

Domestic problems solve themselves eventually.

Trade and diplomacy...setting an example for the world. These are things that bring about positive change.

Wars of aggression always end badly. Always. The only reason we should be at war is if we are attacked (BY A NATION). Then, we defend ourselves. Otherwise, this policy of constant warfare is just setting us up for the Fall of Rome (The Sequel!). If we follow this course we're on, you can expect our Augustus in the next 50 years, quote me on that.

 

[Corydoras]

I can tell you three things that aren't, for certain; poor parenting, drunkiness and laziness.

Each country has it's own unique situation, so it's mostly useless to try and prescribe a cure for dysfunctional and impoverished nations. In general, however, a few things are known to work. Education. Actually that's probably the biggest factor of them all. If you wanna help out the parts of the world which have fallen behind the progress that other nations have built, build a school. By the time the area is in the middle of a civil war, it's too late, but education along with assistance building infrastructure will go along way towards keeping things like Darfur from happening. Medical assistance can help take the burden off burgeoning economies as well, so build a hospital while you're at it.

Here as everywhere, a functional nation is the result of empowered people. They need knowledge, health, and a stable land to grow in.

It's sly to bring in "laziness" as if I had mentioned it. You're hearing someone else's script, not what I'm saying.

But... since you bring it up, you appear to think that initiative makes no difference to personal or organizational efficacy. It certainly does. Values make a difference. The value of of taking individual responsibility is in very large part why the Ron Paul grassroots are like no other.

Habits and styles of substance use do make a difference to individual functioning. While that is a matter of individual responsibility, it makes a difference to a country en masse, and to families one at a time. Or have you never talked to people whose families have experience substance overuse problems?

It is statist to think that education is not a part of parenting, to make a distinction between them. Education is the responsibility of the parents. Parental modelling of behaviors is critical.

Assistance in building infrastructure-- that the people's own government has not chosen to spend their tax money on? To just go in there and be the colonial power that says we know what they need?

Private medical assistance? I think we can agree on that.

Do you agree on what I said about bribery and a culture of corruption?

 

[hypnagogue]

It's sly to bring in "laziness" as if I had mentioned it.

inculcating people with a work ethic

Did you forget?

Habits and styles of substance use do make a difference to individual functioning. While that is a matter of individual responsibility, it makes a difference to a country en masse, and to families one at a time. Or have you never talked to people whose families have experience substance overuse problems?

You just keep going! Unless you believe that substance abuse is an important factor in why impoverished nations find themselves in the situation they are in, then this is totally off topic.

It is statist to think that education is not a part of parenting, to make a distinction between them. Education is the responsibility of the parents. Parental modelling of behaviors is critical.

You're mixing issues. Education is not about modelling of behaviors. That would be parenting. Education is teaching people how to rotate their soil, or how to calculate their finances. Teaching them history and how to read and write. You can say education is the responsibility of the parents, and I won't argue, but isn't the most responsible choice to see that an individual parent is not the most knowledgeable in all subjects? Educational institutions are not statist unless they're run by the state.

Assistance in building infrastructure-- that the people's own government has not chosen to spend their tax money on? To just go in there and be the colonial power that says we know what they need?

Forced road construction? Ha! How about, "Hey, I see you guys are having a hard time getting your goods around. Would you like a road?" "Oh very much. Thank you!" There's no more need to force roads on people than to force foreign hospitals or schools.

Do you agree on what I said about bribery and a culture of corruption?

Governmental corruption is both a symptom of the larger problem, and an exacerbating factor. Nonetheless, it has to be cleared before true progress can be made. Unfortunately, governmental corruption is not something that I feel we have a particular right to interfere with. We can give advice but less so, services. As I said before, the key to good governance is an empowered population, and that I think is what we must focus on. We should deal mostly with the people and less with the government in those situations.

I think the term, culture of corruption, is still very patronizing, and displays an underlying belief that these people are culturally inferior. Our government is ripe with corruption in many ways. Do we live in a culture of corruption?

Ultimately, I find it highly ignorant to believe that what the suffering parts of the world truly need is an injection of our morality. I can only imagine the things we all would do when faced with that kind of hardship and hopelessness.

EDIT:

Also, we need to recognize that sometimes there is no clean, bloodless solution that can be brought about by outside forces.

Very much agree. It's important to recognize where we can help and where we're wasting our time.

 

[Corydoras]

I was thinking that the opposite of a work ethic is passivity-- if you think that's laziness, which I think of as choosing not to work when one knows perfectly well one could work harder, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

All right, drop substance abuse... but if you imagine that "drinking the paycheck" isn't a bigger problem where a family's budget is closer to subsistence than when it has a large margin of disposable income, I can't persuade you otherwise. Yes, unfair as it may seem to you, spending a lot of money is something the poor can literally afford less than the rich.

isn't the most responsible choice to see that an individual parent is not the most knowledgeable in all subjects?

You are not a friend of homeschooling?

I haven't heard of governments being happy to have unasked-for foreign construction of roads in their territories, but would be glad if you would provide more information about them.

I think the term, culture of corruption, is still very patronizing, and displays an underlying belief that these people are culturally inferior. Our government is ripe with corruption in many ways. Do we live in a culture of corruption?

I absolutely think we live in a culture of one type of corruption-- at a high level-- but poor countries also tend to have corruptive cultures, but of another type, at a much lower, far more local level, and I think the more local the corruption, the more a country is held back economically, and this is what I was referring to.

Of course there's such a thing as superior values. If you don't think the priorities of Ron Paul and the Ron Paul Revolution are superior to those of the other candidates and their campaigns, for what reasons are you supporting Ron Paul, anyway? If everyone's values are equal, it really makes no difference who you vote for.

 

[hypnagogue]

I'm not a particular proponent of home schooling.

Perhaps it is simply that every form of morality carries with it tremendous baggage. I have my own set of morals and I know that they differ from many others. Whose morality will we export? I have seen how moral export functions, particularly in the form of missionary work. We'll feed and educate you, but only if you accept our beliefs. That isn't a proper way to spread an individual's views. It's bribery and coercion. No one can claim to possess the true morality, and that includes myself. I can speak on what I think and feel, but never would I hinge my aid to the needy on their acceptance of my beliefs.

I see the spectre of conversion underlying a focus on moral education.

I support Ron because a large portion of his views coincide with mine. Also, because I have a sense that his positions are honest and his integrity unstained. I'd be more than happy to debate those views with someone in an equal position as I am, but not with someone who currently needs my assistance or perhaps feels a debt for previous aid. It simply wouldn't be a fair procedure.

 

[Corydoras]

For what reason would anyone bother to have any values if they didn't think they were true?
Isn't that simply not taking responsibility for the consequences of one's choices?
After all, one's values WILL have an effect on one's choices.
Aren't you just flinching?

I think there are a lot of people who don't participate in private nonprofit beneficent activity (aka charity) because they are uncomfortable with recognizing a power differential that already exists. In other words, they don't want to seem like they are the person in power-- they want to avoid the specter of "bribery and coercion."

But the fact is that people need help. And sometimes that help involves telling them that they in fact can do things another way.

Look. Since you're big on help, you know what it's like when you're coming out of a restaurant with takeout and there's a beggar sitting there and he reaches out a hand, and you give him some of your dinner. Well, as you know, that's the wrong time to tell him to get a job, because for all you know, his mind is blasted with veterans' PTSD and he just can't. Where you and I probably do agree is that it doesn't do much good to tell a hungry person to do something in their lives differently.

So you know, you just hand over some of your dinner and go on your way. But if you're uncomfortable with recognizing that we're not all equal in all ways, you don't look at him, you walk past him, and unless he gets lucky with someone else, he's hungry that night. You have to admit the existence of the inequality in order to see the need. Let me repeat that: If you are uncomfortable with inequality, then you will be in denial of the need all around you.

But recognizing differences in values goes further than that. There's a difference between running into someone once and being a fixture in their community. And if you live among people, you are going to be nothing but an ATM if you don't teach people how to use what you give them.

If you give a woman a microloan to start a little business of her own, it's absurd not to tell her that her husband really does not have the right to take her earnings and go out on the town-- to teach her that she has the power and the right to speak back to her husband and tell him how saving money can enable her to buy a second loom which can double her earnings and maybe they can buy another cow. But that's teaching her capitalistic values!

There are not many ways to be helpful to people that don't involve the, er, risk of infecting them with your values. If you vaccinate them, you are telling them that there is something valuable in Western medicine. If you give them a solar-powered water pump, you are telling them there is something valuable in technology, and that solar is better than gasoline.

And you just cannot get away from the moral burden. Nothing is morally neutral. The existence of the trans-African highway was critical in enabling the spread of AIDS throughout the continent, because infected truckers used prostitutes who serviced other truckers. Roads are not neutral.

Sure, condoms are effective-- but then you are teaching folks that their own health is something they can control and it is within their power to make the choice to save their own lives and that they have to make a choice to be prepared for sex-- teaching them, if you think that disease is just fate, you're going to condemn yourself to a nasty death. Dang, that's moralistic, hey?

There's just no way out, and if one intends to be helpful, it is better to be conscious of this and to consciously take up one's responsibility. Or you can flinch.

 

[hypnagogue]

Those are not the things that come to mind when people start to talk about morality. It may be that I'm simply cynical, but I expect things about homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, monogamy, etc. to follow. If you want to lump civil liberties and wise economic practices inseperably under morality, then I think we're losing an important distinction. A distinction which allows us to drop the other highly contentious baggage. It doesn't help if we're still divided when the goal is to assist others.

About being an ATM. That is precisely what the education is meant to avoid.

Now regarding truth, that is something I take very seriously and with important nuances. 1 and 1 makes 2 is a truth. It can be proven as inherent in the universe. Theft is wrong, can not be a truth because it can never be proven to be an inherent property of reality. It can however be wise. In fact, I think it is wise to believe that theft is wrong, but I also acknowledge that I can not prove that to anyone. I can only offer subjective evidence. Of course, now we're veering off into philosophy, and I think needlessly complicating this discussion.

The best that can be done is to lead by example, rather than instruction. As you say, giving a solar pump would encourage an appreciation for science and possibly even environmental responsibility. It's not influencing others that I'm afraid of. It's dominating them. Robbing them of the essential right to come to their own conclusions. Even if the conclusions that they come to lead themselves into ruin. Aid is not about curing the world of foolishness, it's about assisting those who must pull themselves up from under great burdens from the past. We must use a gentle hand. People must learn the most important things for themselves.

 

[lucius]

We all agree that our government's job is to protect individual liberties, and our military is intended to defend Americans, not to go around policing the world.

With that said, there are many bad things going on in the world. There are evil dictators (and some of them probably got there without our help) oppressing their people, such as in Africa. I think the last group of people that should be involved in doing anything about this is the US government or the US military. They have no constitutional authority to do so, and that is not an appropriate use of taxpayer money.

Originally, this came up in a conversation I was having with someone yesterday about Ron Paul and non-interventionism. Of course, they bring up things like Darfur, and "I can't believe we have this stuff happening in the 21st century; we have to do something." I told her that the federal government has no authority to do anything about this, because it does not involve defending America or Americans.

But I agreed with her that we do have a moral obligation ("moral" meaning "my personal belief" and "not something to be legislated or pushed down anyone else's throat") to help people when they are in need whenever we can, including things like this that are going on around the world. I believe these sorts of things, even when they are on a large national or even continental scale fall under the realm of charities and voluntary work.

Just for an interesting discussion, does anyone have any ideas on how we'd be to attack problems going on in other countries without the use of the government or the military? Something that a sort of "grassroots effort against oppression" would do to not only accomplish the intended goal (or work towards accomplishing it), but actually do it better than government? On a side note, I don't see how it could actually be any worse.

You could join the Peace Corp...

 

[xao]

That sounds a bit like a marxist construct. Why are you only bringing up african countries and not places like Russia or eastern europe? This is the reason I will NEVER donate to any of these organizations. They're ran by anti-caucasion and pro marxist groups. Often times by a front group with a religious name to mask there true ideals/intentions. Intentions being stealing your money. If you want to donate, donate, but don't force me to do it or pass a law.

I don't really know of any specifics. There has been starving in many African nations for quite some time (private groups are always seeking donations and contributions towards this cause), but I don't know how much of an affect they're having. I've heard that there are many bad things happening.

 

[Corydoras]

Those are not the things that come to mind when people start to talk about morality. It may be that I'm simply cynical, but I expect things about homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, monogamy, etc. to follow. If you want to lump civil liberties and wise economic practices inseperably under morality, then I think we're losing an important distinction.

What distinction is that? You think it's somehow not a matter of morality to convey the information that homosexual behavior increases the risk of transmission of infections such as HIV and bacterial vaginosis? That monogamy decreases the risk? That children are less at risk of murder from their own parents than from stepparents? Do you think it's morally neutral to withhold such information?

No, seriously, what is the distinction you make here? If you don't think microloans, and the capitalism they imply, partake of a moral system, talk to someone who believes in collectivism and see if they think capitalism is moral ("Why should SHE profit from two looms when her neighbor has none?"). If you don't think protecting civil liberties implies a morality, talk to someone who doesn't believe in them and see if they think that it's moral to "let people just run wild."

About being an ATM. That is precisely what the education is meant to avoid.

Education is not morally neutral. It cannot be morally neutral. Formal education in particular is alien and disruptive to many cultures, particularly in places where traditional knowledge is transmitted primarily while children are laboring alongside their parents. And even informal education-- teaching people how to use a new water purification system-- can be disruptive by altering old traditions, relationships, and power structures.

we're veering off into philosophy, and I think needlessly complicating this discussion.

Philosophy, and by extension political theory and theology, exist precisely because these matters need to be taken seriously. You are, for example, putting forward a theory of truth that definitely belongs to one philosophical school rather than another-- a lot closer to Russell than Foucault, for example. Careful discussion of assumptions, claims, and arguments matters. That is why philosophy exists. I think it actually helps avoid a lot of going around in circles and flaming and stuff.

[more]

 

[Corydoras]

It's not influencing others that I'm afraid of. It's dominating them. Robbing them of the essential right to come to their own conclusions. Even if the conclusions that they come to lead themselves into ruin.

I respect your sensitivity on these issues. But the right to come to one's own conclusions is an entirely alien notion to many cultures. The concepts of liberty and the free market of ideas are values developed in ancient Greece and respected nowhere as fully as in American culture. (This is one reason why Ron Paul's campaign is so very important for the entire world.) Therefore these are not universal values, and so, offering people information and choices is in itself a kind of imposition of values.

Aid is not about curing the world of foolishness, it's about assisting those who must pull themselves up from under great burdens from the past.

I respect your sensitivity on this, but aid as postcolonial restitution is in itself an imposition of values, if you want to be very delicate about these things, in using others to assuage one's guilt over the past.

And I don't think that all aid needs to do with the past. A lot of it is simply dissemination of ideas, goods, and technology-- but with those come values. The satellite dishes pick up the World Wrestling Federation, after all, and the message that violence can be entertaining, which was distressing news to the Bhutanese, and, some of them claim, inspired new violence among them.

Granted, the people being helped are grownups, but the question is whether you are going to ignore the moral issues that necessarily come up and say that they are free to decide-- which I think is an evasion of responsibility-- or recognize the moral issues and consciously grapple with what values you want to uphold and transmit. A good example cannot be a silent example, as bad examples are numerous and noisy.

I really do not think anything is truly morally neutral (yes, including math, though it comes closest) and I think that much of what you consider ordinary prudence is in fact highly morally charged and culturally specific. As Ron Paul says, liberty is for the sake of virtue and excellence.

 

[Corydoras]

This is the reason I will NEVER donate to any of these organizations. They're ran by anti-caucasion and pro marxist groups. Often times by a front group with a religious name to mask there true ideals/intentions. Intentions being stealing your money. If you want to donate, donate, but don't force me to do it or pass a law.

I think the OP's point WAS indeed about private groups, not forcible donations/taxes.

But please don't be so hasty-- there are groups doing fine work in European countries. For example, I was just reading not long ago about how a rights group had alerted the press and the authorities to abuse of institutionalized disabled children in Serbia.

And if you are associated with a religious group that has close overseas relationships, you will be able to find out which charities are legit.

Caveat donor, really.

I agree with your basic gist... the easiest kind of charity to monitor is direct action within your neighborhood, where it seamlessly merges with neighborliness. When you find out that your next door neighbor's kids and grandkids have become homeless and she doesn't have room to take them in and you don't, then buy a cellphone and some minutes for her to give them, so she knows where they are each night. That kind of thing.

 

[nickcoons]

I really don't see how anyone could have distorted my comments more than you have.

That sounds a bit like a marxist construct. Why are you only bringing up african countries and not places like Russia or eastern europe?

Someone asked me of an example that private organizations have not been able to take care of. I don't know of any.. I don't follow the progress of these groups, to the point that I don't even know that they exist. I brought up an example of one that I've seen. In no way can it be said that I was promoting or supporting that organization's efforts.

Often times by a front group with a religious name to mask there true ideals/intentions. Intentions being stealing your money. If you want to donate, donate, but don't force me to do it or pass a law.

Please, please tell me where I suggested passing such a law. You can't. In fact, if you'd like, I will reference several comments in this thread alone that I have made stating explicitly that I do not support such laws.

I'm really not sure what the point of your post was.

 

[xao]

Your marxist heros and ideals are going down pretty soon. The third world will have to deal with its own warlords very soon. You don't fool me. Your posts are right out of marx's play book. I've seen the same failed ideals when I lived in China. Whether you realise it or not, and I think you do. Don't play so naive.

 

[Corydoras]

Xao, I don't think he's playing naive. I think you're having a conversation with yourself. He hasn't mentioned any Marxist heroes. What failed Marxist ideals are you thinking of?

He wasn't even asking if it's okay to back groups trying to help people in other countries. For what reason are you participating in this thread?

 

[Corydoras]

Nick, are these the kinds of activities you are thinking of? Or no?

http://iabolish.org/
http://www.tarayanafoundation.org/about.php
http://www.iocc.org/aboutiocc_mission.aspx

 

[nickcoons]

Your marxist heros and ideals are going down pretty soon. The third world will have to deal with its own warlords very soon. You don't fool me. Your posts are right out of marx's play book. I've seen the same failed ideals when I lived in China. Whether you realise it or not, and I think you do. Don't play so naive.

I haven't seen any posts relating to Marxism in this entire thread, except your posts. Who are you even talking to? Why are you here?

 

[nickcoons]

Nick, are these the kinds of activities you are thinking of? Or no?

http://iabolish.org/
http://www.tarayanafoundation.org/about.php
http://www.iocc.org/aboutiocc_mission.aspx

I believe so.

My next question would be, what would your response be to someone that said these organizations aren't doing enough, and we could do more if the government got involved?

I like what ClassicalLiberal stated in an earlier post in this thread:

Here in the good ol' U.S. of A our "solution" to slavery and the question of secession was to slug it out in one of the most gawd awful wars witnessed up to that point in human history. I'm not sure we would be better off now if the French, British, et. al. jumped in to "solve" our problem.

As Ron Paul often says, it's easier to state the opposition to show how absurd it is. This might be the best way to answer my question, just by observing attempts at government involvement and seeing that they don't work. It's often thought that our government can just waltz in anywhere and fix any problem and that we simply need the political will to do it. It seems pointing out how that's simply not the case might be the best response.