The Tsunami and "Public Relief"
Jan. 3rd, 2005 12:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsGeorge Dvorsky at Sentient Development, a socialist-transhumanist blog, is absolutely livid because David Holcberg over at the Ayn Rand institute makes the claim that "The U.S. should not help the tsunami victims" [sic George Dvorsky].
Well, I hate to say it, George, but you're wrong, you did not respond to David's argument with a principled response, and David is right. David was sloppy, but you should be able to distinguish between sloppy and evil. You want David to be evil.
Do you know the difference between a nation and a country? A country is a geographic region administered by a government; a nation is a collective of people with a shared history and identity. The government of the United States raises money by taxation; it is not the executive branch's to give out without congressional authorization, and the $350 million allocated is not within our budgetary limits. Every dollar the U.S. Government gives to alleviate the tsunami victim's suffering is coming out of a deficiet, and our children and our children's children will be paying that debt. And the argument that our debt is in the trillions, what's a few tenths of a percentage more here or there, won't wash: it is this attitude that got us here in the first place.
A government cannot also give charitably. Individuals can, but governments must only give foreign aid as a matter of policy and to acheive foreign objectives. A government is not an individual; it cannot "feel," and it cannot, as a matter of course, claim to know the charity in the hearts of its citizens.
George ends with a comment, trying to shame the U.S. (government) by pointing out that if our government gave as much as the Canadian government, the U.S. would have to shell out $800 million to seem equitably charitable.
Well, I guarantee you that after you add up all of the private contributions by private individuals, the U.S. will still come out even or even ahead of most other nations in the amount of long-term aid rendered to the victims of tsunamis. I have no doubt that some of that aid is targetted-- along with food, get some Christian or Moslem lecturing-- but that's no worse than the U.S. expecting its quid-pro-quo for its "charity." And much of it, having gone around government channels, will be more efficient and more useful.
A country cannot give charitably; a nation, expressed by individual actions in concert, can, does, and will, as only the U.S. can, does, and will. It's a shame that too many people look to one and only one institution to "save us from ourselves."
Well, I hate to say it, George, but you're wrong, you did not respond to David's argument with a principled response, and David is right. David was sloppy, but you should be able to distinguish between sloppy and evil. You want David to be evil.
Do you know the difference between a nation and a country? A country is a geographic region administered by a government; a nation is a collective of people with a shared history and identity. The government of the United States raises money by taxation; it is not the executive branch's to give out without congressional authorization, and the $350 million allocated is not within our budgetary limits. Every dollar the U.S. Government gives to alleviate the tsunami victim's suffering is coming out of a deficiet, and our children and our children's children will be paying that debt. And the argument that our debt is in the trillions, what's a few tenths of a percentage more here or there, won't wash: it is this attitude that got us here in the first place.
A government cannot also give charitably. Individuals can, but governments must only give foreign aid as a matter of policy and to acheive foreign objectives. A government is not an individual; it cannot "feel," and it cannot, as a matter of course, claim to know the charity in the hearts of its citizens.
George ends with a comment, trying to shame the U.S. (government) by pointing out that if our government gave as much as the Canadian government, the U.S. would have to shell out $800 million to seem equitably charitable.
Well, I guarantee you that after you add up all of the private contributions by private individuals, the U.S. will still come out even or even ahead of most other nations in the amount of long-term aid rendered to the victims of tsunamis. I have no doubt that some of that aid is targetted-- along with food, get some Christian or Moslem lecturing-- but that's no worse than the U.S. expecting its quid-pro-quo for its "charity." And much of it, having gone around government channels, will be more efficient and more useful.
A country cannot give charitably; a nation, expressed by individual actions in concert, can, does, and will, as only the U.S. can, does, and will. It's a shame that too many people look to one and only one institution to "save us from ourselves."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 08:42 pm (UTC)That last sentence really says a lot.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 08:45 pm (UTC)The goal isn't to score points in some insipid socialist-vs-libertarian pissing match, the point is (I hope) to actually help these people, as soon as possible, as much as possible.
If the Leviathan happens to be the entity with the tools on hand to make that happen, refusing to use them would be worse than evil: it would be dumb.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-04 07:39 pm (UTC)And, y'know, most of the issue has been with cargo planes and trucks on the ground; helicopters and fast transport ships have been second-tier. This crisis is being handled rather well, as far as I can tell, at least in those countries that have something akin to democracies, and most of the handling has been through private groups.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-04 09:12 pm (UTC)Eh. I honestly don't get this. You're right: there's no consitutional commandment stating that foreign aid shall be given. There is, however, about 200 years of law afterwards (statutory, judicial and treaty) both allowing and occasionally obliging us to do so.
If you require a specific consitutional dispensation for every government action, you get the constitution of Italy. If you require a specific constitutional dispensation for every government action and make it really hard to get them, you get the government of Alabama.
If we have a good rationale for poviding aid, we should be able to articulate it.
I agree. But I can think of at least three or four good ones off the top of my head (starting with "Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country and maybe we should show some carrot as long as we're giving Iraq the stick"), and I'm disinclined to think that we need a national encounter group to make certain that everyone is on boards with all of them before we actually start sending ships -- emergencies being, you know, emergencies and all. If a plurality of the population considers this to have been a horrible waste of our resources in retrospect, there is always the option of electing isolationists in the next congressional elections. (cf: nationalized health care, Newt Gingrich, 1994, etc)
This crisis is being handled rather well, as far as I can tell, at least in those countries that have something akin to democracies
More or less agreed.
and most of the handling has been through private groups.
Got a reference for that? I'd think it's still a bit early to even start doing the accounting...
Charity
Date: 2005-01-04 12:56 am (UTC)Charity is a common quality in many cultures, particularly in Christianity and in Islam. A very positive quality, you have to admit, and maybe this disaster will allow a foot in the door for someone to actually try to come to some meeting of the minds.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 02:29 am (UTC)Your (and Holcberg's) answer to this question is that the government is not authorized to do that. I don't think you can argue this from a legal point of view and challenge the government's actions in the Supreme Court - obviously, the government is authorized to borrow money and spend it, if it finds so necessary. So, your argument must be a purely moral one - that the actions of the government in this case do not represent the will of the people. But I am sure that they do, and that few Americans object to them.
The last line of defense would be to claim, that to provide help to those in desperate need is immoral in principle, but even Holcberg doesn't go that far.