Would you support ending all US foreign aid immediately?

[enhanced_deficit]

Even if some foreign parasite states militaries may have become addicted to US taxpayers welfare aid,
Even if powerful lobbies of some foreign countries with deep pockets and expertise in buying US politicians may oppose this fiercely,
Even if it required fearless MAGA to return all money from his largest donor and zionist casino owner Sheldon Adelson,
Would you support US ending all foreign aid immediately?

Humnitarian aid could continue through private charity groups.


Related

October 3, 2018
US Officially Sends Largest Ever $38 Billion Military Aid Package to Israel

Mike Pompeo: ‘We want the whole Middle East to look like Israel’

Former CIA Officer: US Fighting Israel's Wars

Israel detains American student for her alleged boycott support

 

[enhanced_deficit]

 

[VIDEODROME]

It depends what we're getting in return for these bribes.

 

[DamianTV]

We only gave Nigeria FOUR DOLLARS? That sounds about right. They make more money off of us with their Prince Bank scams.

All we are doing with Foreign Aid is taking money from Poor People in Rich Countries and giving it to Rich People in Poor Countries.

 

[Influenza]

We only gave Nigeria FOUR DOLLARS? That sounds about right. They make more money off of us with their Prince Bank scams.

All we are doing with Foreign Aid is taking money from Poor People in Rich Countries and giving it to Rich People in Poor Countries.

do you know what per capita means?

 

[Swordsmyth]

do you know what per capita means?

Do you know what humor is?

 

[timosman]

Do you know what humor is?

No. I am a communist.

 

[Influenza]

Do you know what humor is?

evidently not, and by the looks of it, neither damiantv

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Foreign aid isn't wrong in principle.

It has to be judged case by case, the criterion being whether there is a net gain or loss for liberty.

The taxation required to finance it is always a loss.

So, the question is what (if any) gain the expenditures bring about.

If giving $100 million to some state prevents a revolution which would cause $50 billion damages to people and property, that's a net gain.

This is the same reasoning used to justify the state in general (contra anarchy); harm from minimal taxes < harm from chaos.

 

[timosman]

If giving $100 million to some state prevents a revolution which would cause $50 billion damages to people and property, that's a net gain.

According to the broken window fallacy?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Foreign aid isn't wrong in principle.

It has be judged case by case, the criterion being whether there is a net gain or loss for liberty.

The taxation required to finance it is always a loss.

So, the question is what (if any) gain the expenditures bring about.

If giving $100 million to some state prevents a revolution which would cause $50 billion damages to people and property, that's a net gain.

It's never a gain to our citizens and it is like patting the tarbaby on the back instead of punching it, you still get tangled up in a ghastly mess either way.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

It's never a gain to our citizens

That's irrelevant.

The question is whether the policy promotes human liberty or not.

...

Regarding the poll, by the way, I'd answer no, pending a case by case review of each program.

If it turned out that none of them brought about a net gain for liberty, I'd eliminate them all immediately.

I suspect that the vast majority of them should be scrapped, but I can't say with certainty that they all should be.

 

[Swordsmyth]

That's irrelevant.

The question is whether the policy promotes human liberty or not.

...

Regarding the poll, by the way, I'd answer no, pending a case by case review of each program.

If it turned out that none of them brought about a net gain for liberty, I'd eliminate them all immediately.

I suspect that the vast majority of them should be scrapped, but I can't say with certainty that they all should be.

Just the kind of globalist nonsense I expected from you.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Just the kind of globalist nonsense I expected from you.

You value an individual's liberty by the coincidence of his geographical location.

I don't make that arbitrary distinction.

If that makes me a "globalist," okay.

It makes you not a libertarian.

 

[AZJoe]

Foreign aid isn't wrong in principle.s.

Yes it is. Foreign welfare is wrong in principal. Taxation is theft. Using theft for wealth redistribution, bribery, cronyism, market distortion, whatever - its still theft.

It has to be judged case by case, the criterion being whether there is a net gain or loss for liberty.

Wrong. Taxation is theft. Entertaining the very concept that its Ok to steal to "spend on things we overlords deem good for you" is a net loss for liberty. Entertaining the notion that government knows best how to spend your earnings is a net loss for liberty.

The taxation required to finance it is always a loss.

Taxation is always theft.

So, the question is what (if any) gain the expenditures bring about.

That's not the question. the question is do you have a right to keep your own earnings and decide for yourself how to spend them? Do overlords have a right to steal your labor? You want to donate your own earnings to make politicians richer and more powerful in foreign countries, go ahead. But you have no right to steal other peoples wealth to do so.

If giving $100 million to some state prevents a revolution which would cause $50 billion damages to people and property, that's a net gain.

If you believe that, than give your own $100 million or set up a charity fund to request voluntary donations, but you have no right to steal from others to spend their labor on the latest foreign welfare scheme.

This is the same reasoning used to justify the state in general (contra anarchy); harm from minimal taxes < harm from chaos.

Yup, the cry that "we know how best to run your life" and "we know best how to spend your money" its the same baseless reasoning used to justify all the government violence and bribery and welfare and other corruption schemes.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So, [MENTION=64691]AZJoe[/MENTION], I take it you're an anarcho-capitalist?

 

[Swordsmyth]

You value an individual's liberty by the coincidence of his geographical location.

I don't make that arbitrary distinction.

If that makes me a "globalist," okay.

It makes you not a libertarian.

I value my own liberty first and that of those I am connected to proportional to my connection to them, that makes me a libertarian.

You believe that you can interfere in foreign countries without becoming tyrannical or undermining your own people's belief in liberty, that makes you a deluded globalist.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I value my own liberty first and that of those I am connected to proportional to my connection to them

Right

that makes me a libertarian

No, that's precisely where you diverge from libertarianism.

You're a nationalist first. Only within the bounds of nationalism do you support libertarian principles (which are universal).

You believe that you can interfere in foreign countries the neighboring town without becoming tyrannical or undermining your own people's belief in liberty, that makes you a deluded globalist statist.

What is, the unsound argument that anarchists make against minarchists?

 

[jkr]

Where Is the choice for F YES! ?

 

[Anti Globalist]

Yes I would. Foreign aid is talking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.