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."
