Helping the world

[nickcoons]

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.

 

[Corydoras]

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?

What sort of problems are you thinking of that aren't being addressed already in some way by private organizations?

 

[TrueFreedom]

Ok this is where I have problems. Why should we say that we have no moral obligation as a country to stop genocide and mass rape? In Sudan, there are horrid acts that cannot be solved by some private group. I understand the idea that we have no constitutional authority to go intervene, and yes, less intervention in other countries affairs would be beneficial, but don't we have a moral obligation to stop genocide? I mean in order to have a truely free country, you must have a moral society (James Madison). If we sit by and say, well there is also genocide in the Congo, and we don't help them, so why help Sudan, isn't that a copout? How can we say we have a moral society if we see things like that going on and do nothing about it?

 

[johngr]

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...

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?

Who's this "we" Kimosabe?

 

[nickcoons]

Who's this "we" Kimosabe?

"We" in this context is the world's population. Again, this is my personal belief, which I thought I'd stated very clearly. In case I didn't, let me clarify further. I would not support any legislation that mandated this. That's why it's called a "moral" belief, and has no place in government.

If you and others don't hold that belief, then I would not attempt to force you to accept it.

 

[nickcoons]

Ok this is where I have problems. Why should we say that we have no moral obligation as a country to stop genocide and mass rape?

I don't know who said that, but it wasn't me. If you re-read my original post, in fact, you'll notice that I explicitly said that we do have that moral obligation.

But a moral obligation is a personal belief, not something that you can rightly force upon anyone.

If you and I wanted to help the people in Sudan, and we believed that everyone else should do that as well, then we can coordinate the efforts of anyone who agreed with our views and was interested in helping. In no way, however, would it be acceptable for us to force people to help (i.e. through taxation) if they did not want to. A moral obligation is something you can't force, though you can use your reasoning and logic to bring people to your cause.

 

[nickcoons]

What sort of problems are you thinking of that aren't being addressed already in some way by private organizations?

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:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=darfur&btnG=Google+Search

Of course, this is all very generic without any specifics. But my question is specific.

Libertarians love the idea of "you leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone", and that government's only job is really to protect those rights. But for many people, that argument doesn't work. I've heard, "There are killings all over the world, and that is simply unacceptable; we can't let that happen anywhere in the world." And they see military invasions as acceptable methods of fixing these issues. We brought to their attention that the military does more harm than good in these situations, their response is that we don't need to scrap military involvement, we just need someone in power that knows how to do it properly.

Some people are very utilitarian, and will justify that the loss of freedom or wealth to a few is acceptable if it brings freedom and wealth to more people. Instead of trying to change their mind on this philosophically, I'm trying to change their minds practically. I'd like to show them that there are better ways of dealing with the worlds problems in practice than with government involvement.

In most case, I can demonstrate this. In a situation where the problems exist in other countries and are very large, I don't know of any plans to take care of these issues, especially ones that can be demonstrated to be more effective than government intervention. I do admit that I haven't searched for any, but thought that others here might know of some resources or concepts that would be helpful.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Wanna use force to stop bad guys from doing bad things to other people in foreign countries? Start a collection and hire Blackwater. Wanna send aid to foreign governments? Send it yourself. I've got my own problems to worry about.

 

[raiha]

Without wanting to blow my national trumpet, our government sends our army in only for peace-keeping and re-building shattered populations. Oh and we tend to go to sufffering places where we are not going to gain monetarily!!!

I think you need to be scrupulous in figuring out what is really going on. ie one minute the USA govt supports a street thug called Sadaam Hussein and arms him and catapults him into power. Next minute he is the Axis of Evil because he refuses to be manipulated as much. Musharraff is another case in point...being currently hailed as 'visionary' by some of your statesmen. Another thug serving US interests.

As for Blackwaters, you've got to be kidding. 25,000 US mercenaries loose in Iraq of which Blackwaters form a large part. Weren't they the guys in SUV's and sunglasses, oh yes and wearing BLACKSHIRTS wielding semi-automatics after Katrina in a US city. Sounds like the early stirirings of a fascist state. hey they'll all be needing a job after Iraq!

 

[allyinoh]

Wanna send aid to foreign governments? Send it yourself. I've got my own problems to worry about.

AMEN!

I have no moral obligation to help anyone but myself and the occasional donation to a charity. All giving should be voluntary.

The government is not here to spread morality in our country or other countries.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I heard it reported that the "Save Darfur" coalition has raised around $15 million, and they've been using that money to fund an ad campaign in the U.S. and organizing protest marches, and so forth. Clearly, their hope is that they can convince the American people to support some intervention by the U.S. military.

I suspect however, that they could save a lot more lives in Darfur, if they used that money to hire an outfit like Blackwater to go in and sort out the Janjaweed in a language they'll understand.

Edit: And for those who think this notion of using mercenaries is crazy, you should keep in mind that at least these mercs go into the combat zone voluntarily, unlike the poor 19 year old Army soldiers who go where they're ordered and die for pennies.

 

[nickcoons]

Wanna use force to stop bad guys from doing bad things to other people in foreign countries?

No, and I've been pretty clear about that.

Wanna send aid to foreign governments? Send it yourself. I've got my own problems to worry about.

I understand with the Libertarian philosophy on this issue. As a Libertarian, I also agree with it. What I'm after is a solution that fits the Libertarian philosophy but will still make sense to those that don't; something that also creates the desired affect.

Many people want to see a solution that works for the greatest number of people, and individual liberty is second to that goal. For me, individual liberty is primary, and the practical implementation of solving problems is secondary. Ideally, I believe that solutions come from individual liberty. So I'm looking for an example of how that manifests itself. We are, after all, trying to get people to subscribe to Ron Paul's ideas and vote for him, right?

 

[nickcoons]

AMEN!

I have no moral obligation to help anyone but myself and the occasional donation to a charity. All giving should be voluntary.

The government is not here to spread morality in our country or other countries.

Did you not even read anything I wrote?

 

[nickcoons]

I heard it reported that the "Save Darfur" coalition has raised around $15 million, and they've been using that money to fund an ad campaign in the U.S. and organizing protest marches, and so forth. Clearly, their hope is that they can convince the American people to support some intervention by the U.S. military.

I suspect however, that they could save a lot more lives in Darfur, if they used that money to hire an outfit like Blackwater to go in and sort out the Janjaweed in a language they'll understand.

Edit: And for those who think this notion of using mercenaries is crazy, you should keep in mind that at least these mercs go into the combat zone voluntarily, unlike the poor 19 year old Army soldiers who go where they're ordered and die for pennies.

I think this is probably the best idea. $15 million is a good start towards funding private efforts.

 

[Corydoras]

In a situation where the problems exist in other countries and are very large, I don't know of any plans to take care of these issues, especially ones that can be demonstrated to be more effective than government intervention. I do admit that I haven't searched for any, but thought that others here might know of some resources or concepts that would be helpful.

I think maybe Amnesty International is as good as it gets, if you can accept their idea that access to abortion is a human right, which I can't.

There are numerous anti-slavery groups that are working against child labor, human trafficking, and classical slavery.

The thing is that a lot of structural problems are frankly a matter of values. If a culture exists where people are not ashamed that their kid who works in government takes bribes, there is not much that can be done about that without changing the culture. I think mostly religious groups have been involved in attempting to change culture in this way; I have read that Pentecostal and Evangelical Protestants have been doing this in South America, for example inculcating people with a work ethic and an anti-drunkenness ethic.

Values are hard to change. But you can't change government without changing the culture in which it is embedded, and that's hard work to raise consciousness and get people to take action. Just look at this campaign, for example.

It can be done. Maybe you should read up on past Nobel Peace Prize winners and see how they did things nongovernmentally.

 

[Vjklander]

"We" in this context is the world's population. Again, this is my personal belief, which I thought I'd stated very clearly. In case I didn't, let me clarify further. I would not support any legislation that mandated this. That's why it's called a "moral" belief, and has no place in government.

If you and others don't hold that belief, then I would not attempt to force you to accept it.

Its simple. If it is that important to you, buy a ticket, go there, and fight against the bad guys.

 

[hypnagogue]

The thing is that a lot of structural problems are frankly a matter of values. If a culture exists where people are not ashamed that their kid who works in government takes bribes, there is not much that can be done about that without changing the culture. I think mostly religious groups have been involved in attempting to change culture in this way; I have read that Pentecostal and Evangelical Protestants have been doing this in South America, for example inculcating people with a work ethic and an anti-drunkenness ethic.

That sure sounds like you believe the troubles other people have are a result of their moral inferiority and lack of christianity. That's pretty disgusting.

 

[ClassicalLiberal]

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.

 

[Corydoras]

That sure sounds like you believe the troubles other people have are a result of their moral inferiority and lack of christianity. That's pretty disgusting.

Wrong inference. Save your disgust for something else.

What do YOU think are the cause of their troubles?

 

[hypnagogue]

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.