g8 results

well the g8 is over and chinoocs and gunships keep flying over my house just to prove it (there's been a chinooc a day for the last week).

so what do you make of the results? no change on africa's trade rules, no more debt relief that was agreed previously, no move for climate change, and more debt for africa, subsidies to remain.

i myself am not too impressed. after all that has been said and one, live-8, the marches and protests, the hype that this may end poverty in africa. but no. harldy anything comes out of it and even less for climate change. and what has been agreed won't take place for another 5 years in which time millions will die.

your views?

How, exactly, does one "end poverty in Africa?" Wave a magic wand? We can send over boat-loads of money, but until they're willing to help themselves, nothing will change. Same with the AIDS epidemic there.

the AIDS thing is because they are catholics


for some stupid reason the smurfed up catholic religions wont allow use of condoms or abortion


there should be more Aid and tell Africa to take care of itself with the money

There needs to be more pressure on the part of the Western world to reform various corrupt governments in the African continent. They won't do it themselves. Then we can send aid to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

There needs to be more pressure on the part of the Western world to reform various corrupt governments in the African continent. They won't do it themselves. Then we can send aid to them.

---

So...what do we do? How does one "reform" a foreign government? We could invade, conquer, and establish democracy - but unless an African government or body is committing genocide, this is wrong and illegal.

tell it straight to them and the government

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

So...what do we do? How does one "reform" a foreign government? We could invade, conquer, and establish democracy - but unless an African government or body is committing genocide, this is wrong and illegal.

---

Sudan?

I don't remember the specifics of that incident, but "we did it once, so we can do it again" is not a valid reason.

I've heard of this over the news yesterday. I also heard they're attempting to help africa which is a good thing...

Public opinion has little to no effect on government decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -N-

Public opinion has little to no effect on government decisions.

---

Tyrants only rule by the consent of the people. Public opinion doesn't affect government decisions because people just like to bitch to their barber when the government does something stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

There needs to be more pressure on the part of the Western world to reform various corrupt governments in the African continent. They won't do it themselves. Then we can send aid to them.

---

So...what do we do? How does one "reform" a foreign government? We could invade, conquer, and establish democracy - but unless an African government or body is committing genocide, this is wrong and illegal.

---

If a government is not ruling it's people, is not aiding them, attempting to educate them (And I mean by telling them that sex without condoms = AIDS, I don't mean school and college just yet.), is corrupt and not willing to make large-scale and rapid reforms, then I believe we would not be in the wrong.

However, as Iraq shows, helping foreigners is bad. I think trade is the only way to help Africa which anyone would even consider. And I'm not remotely surprised that Live 8 did, essentially, nothing.

Quote:

---

[1]If a government is not ruling it's people, [2]is not aiding them, [3]attempting to educate them (And I mean by telling them that sex without condoms = AIDS, I don't mean school and college just yet.), [4]is corrupt and [5]not willing to make large-scale and rapid reforms, [6]then I believe we would not be in the wrong.

---

1. What do you mean by "not ruling?" I think that would be a good thing.
2. How much does have to aid its people before it's ok? Is there a specific dollar amount per person?
3. First off, the typical African males refuse to wear condoms outright. Secondly, how much does a government have to educate? I wouldn't consider a country without public education to be evil.
4. How do you judge "corrupt?"
5. So...not wanting change warrants invasion?

These are not objective issues for invasion. They are subjective - meaning something could or could not fit into a certain category(no "black and white" but all shades of gray). Laws(including international laws) must be objectively defined - if someone did something, he either broke the law, or he didn't. It can't be "well, stealing is sometimes against the law, but...given the unusual circumstances, he can go free."
As far as I know, the only objectively defined precedent for invasion(besides self-defense, of course) is genocide: if one body of people is murdering another specific body of people with a probable cause of intent to wipe out that body. Politicians have tried to tip-toe around this, making up shades of gray where there are none(see: White House press releases in '94 about Rwanda), but it's obvious bull.

hiow can we help africa?well for one ened the illigetimate deabt that has been paid many times over but still more is being charged in interest. we can start trade justice and stop placing unfair tarrifs on african goods. we can stop dumping our subsidesed goods and crops on africa which drives down their prices and puts their farmers out of business.

climate change was also a major disappointment. but that is to be expected with america.

Quote:

---

well for one ened the illigetimate deabt that has been paid many times over but still more is being charged in interest.

---

You do realize that every single country has debt, right?

Quote:

---

we can start trade justice and stop placing unfair tarrifs on african goods.

---

This one I agree with. I don't know of any specific tarifs on African goods, but I am against any sort of trade restrictions like that.

Quote:

---

we can stop dumping our subsidesed goods and crops on africa which drives down their prices and puts their farmers out of business.

---

Wait...so, according to your last point, you want to establish free trade between Africa and America...but here, you want to STOP free trade to Africa from America? So "free market...but not too much free market?"

EDIT: Also, I should point out, by driving down prices it allows people to buy food cheaper...isn't that a good thing?

no the problem with subsidised goods is. farmers here are paid to over-produce and so the left overs gets dumped on africa at cheap prices which drives down their own farmers profits. and maybe free trade should only be one way for now. it's not going to make us starve but ti will starve millions of them.

driving down prices for africa farmers reduceds their profits. and so the aoutn of seed and fertilizer they can buy. and so the amount they produce. and afircan farmers producing less is only a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

How, exactly, does one "end poverty in Africa?" Wave a magic wand? We can send over boat-loads of money, but until they're willing to help themselves, nothing will change. Same with the AIDS epidemic there.

---

Are you suggesting that the people starving to death in the sun, still arent willing to help themselves??? Or are you saying that because the government is corrupt and refuses to help its people, that we should stand back and watch these people die on CNN(or maybe u prefer Fox News)? Either way i think your wrong.

I dont think the military option is the right one, but i think whatever we can do, we should do. This includes forgiving debt that will never be paid off, seeing as these countries economies will never rise otherwise. Our officials are corrupt, they see Africa as a cash cow, that they can milk for years without the well running dry.

Quote:

---

Are you suggesting that the people starving to death in the sun, still arent willing to help themselves??? Or are you saying that because the government is corrupt and refuses to help its people, that we should stand back and watch these people die on CNN(or maybe u prefer Fox News)? Either way i think your wrong.

---

The men are continually getting, transmitting, and dying from AIDS, which, I would imagine, is a much more painful experience than starvation, yet the majority of them still refuse to wear condoms. Where irrationality is concerned, there is no such thing as "reason."
How does the government have to "help its people?" Define how, exactly, a government must help its people, and where - precisely - do you draw the line?
Oh, and for the record: I can't stand FOX News.

Quote:

---

I dont think the military option is the right one, but i think whatever we can do, we should do. This includes forgiving debt that will never be paid off, seeing as these countries economies will never rise otherwise. Our officials are corrupt, they see Africa as a cash cow, that they can milk for years without the well running dry.

---

Their economies will never rise because there's not a free market. We can give them more and more money, but it's just drops of water in a bottomless pit.
Yes, our officials are corrupt, but that goes into another argument(which I have argued in numerous other threads - most lately the Supreme Court emiment domain thread).

for once i agree with csz. the aids thing in africa is caused by most of them being catholic and the pope willing to keep the situation going.

and to get around the corrupt government thing why not do what many charities do and instead of giving the government money and saying "promise to build a school with this". you can just build the school.

Quote:

---

the aids thing in africa is caused by most of them being catholic and the pope willing to keep the situation going.

---

This is not the Pope's or the Church's fault. Nobody is forced to follow the Church's words - they make the choice to subordinate their judgment in favor of another's. That's their fault.

Quote:

---

and to get around the corrupt government thing why not do what many charities do and instead of giving the government money and saying "promise to build a school with this". you can just build the school.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

This is not the Pope's or the Church's fault. Nobody is forced to follow the Church's words - they make the choice to subordinate their judgment in favor of another's. That's their fault.

---

??? I agree entirely that people should think for themselves, but the simple fact is that their beliefs lead them to dying. Lots. And the Pope has the capacity to stop this (Or at least mitigate it), so shouldn't he be doing that?

Quote:

---

1. What do you mean by "not ruling?" I think that would be a good thing.
2. How much does have to aid its people before it's ok? Is there a specific dollar amount per person?
3. First off, the typical African males refuse to wear condoms outright. Secondly, how much does a government have to educate? I wouldn't consider a country without public education to be evil.
4. How do you judge "corrupt?"
5. So...not wanting change warrants invasion?

---

1) Fair point. Not what I was trying to say, of course, but a fair point for Western nations, where we have the resources and access to information to make our own decisions, and we have established and at least reasonably robust systems in place to right wrongs.

2) I didn't mean aid in that sense, but I didn't clarify so it doesn't matter. My point was a more general sense of 'aid', ie building hospitals instead of funding gangs, and putting people through schools.

3) Nor would I, but when there are plainly established facts about a situation, and the government isn't trying to educate people, the government is in error. It's like smoking. There's no moral grounds to ban it, but the risks must be told.

4) When they pay people to raze crops, rape women, amputate children, and massacre men with aid money designated for education, food, and medicines.

5) When the absence of change is leading to a reported 30,000 dead children a day, yes. Ok, in general I'm all about reduction of armed forces and military isolationism, but in this instance by far the most assured way of fixing anything is imperialism. Or at the least entirely bypassing local governments, and building and running required infrastructure with their own funding and defending them with their own security forces. Which is tantamount to invasion anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

??? I agree entirely that people should think for themselves, but the simple fact is that their beliefs lead them to dying. Lots. And the Pope has the capacity to stop this (Or at least mitigate it), so shouldn't he be doing that?

---

Well...I guess. I'm just against any system where you rely on one body to tell you what to believe.

Quote:

---

1. What do you mean by "not ruling?" I think that would be a good thing.
2. How much does have to aid its people before it's ok? Is there a specific dollar amount per person?
3. First off, the typical African males refuse to wear condoms outright. Secondly, how much does a government have to educate? I wouldn't consider a country without public education to be evil.
4. How do you judge "corrupt?"
5. So...not wanting change warrants invasion?

---

Quote:

---

1) Fair point. Not what I was trying to say, of course, but a fair point for Western nations, where we have the resources and access to information to make our own decisions, and we have established and at least reasonably robust systems in place to right wrongs.

---

What kind of wrongs? Who decides what's wrong? There is an established system: the UN. The "what kind of wrongs" was objectively defined as "genocide" and "invasion." Nothing else - that I've seen anyway - can be objectively defined or consistently acted upon.

Quote:

---

2) I didn't mean aid in that sense, but I didn't clarify so it doesn't matter. My point was a more general sense of 'aid', ie building hospitals instead of funding gangs, and putting people through schools.

---

But the government is not obligated to build hospitals or schools. These can, and arguably should, be privatized.

Quote:

---

3) Nor would I, but when there are plainly established facts about a situation, and the government isn't trying to educate people, the government is in error. It's like smoking. There's no moral grounds to ban it, but the risks must be told.

---

Ok...so the government's supposed to sell itself out to the people? Why? For what? What about if they say "no, screw you?"

Quote:

---

4) When they pay people to raze crops, rape women, amputate children, and massacre men with aid money designated for education, food, and medicines.

---

First off, many of things are not done by(or, at least, not exclusively done by) the government - so that's null. Secondly, again, how many crops have to be razed, how many women raped, how many children amputated, how many men massacred, how much money stolen from its people(which is done every two weeks by our own government through income tax) has to be done before it's "wrong?" If it's wrong, it's wrong to do it once - which means, by that logic, that we have to invade a country where one person's farmland was razed - and not necessarily by the government, either.
I'll ask you again: how can you objectively define the nature of the crimes in Africa that warrant invasion?

A corrupt government does not warrant conquering(unless it infringes on the rights of other countries or is committing genocide). It is up to the people of that area to establish and run its own government - and to make their own choices. If they want to fight against their government, they'll fight. If not, it doesn't happen.

Quote:

---

5) When the absence of change is leading to a reported 30,000 dead children a day, yes. Ok, in general I'm all about reduction of armed forces and military isolationism, but in this instance by far the most assured way of fixing anything is imperialism. Or at the least entirely bypassing local governments, and building and running required infrastructure with their own funding and defending them with their own security forces. Which is tantamount to invasion anyway.

---

Ok, so you're all for an isolationist policy...except for this case. Why? Is 30,000 dead kids/day where you draw the line? "We shouldn't invade another country unless they invade us first...unless 30,000 kids/day are dying." Does the government have to be killing all of those kids - or, say, if an epidemic(AIDS) wiped through a village, killing 30,000 babies, would that warrant invasion?

"We must invade Africa." "Why?" "Because kids are dying." "But kids are dying here all the time from abusive parents to starvation to disease and any of a whole list of things - what makes Africa special?" There is no objective reason(that I've heard, anyway).

I'm starting to think more and more that Africa needs to solve it's own problems. I'm not opposed to people going to Africa to help innocent individuals, but I don't think anything else (except probably making it easier for Africa to open trade) is doing anything but more harm.

education

I count providing education under helping innocent individuals.

Imperialism played a role in getting Africa into this mess. We shouldn't use imperialism to try to get them out of it. Africa, by and large, comes across as a region that doesn't want to improve. They know about the Aids problem and they still have enough unprotected sex to spread the disease like wildfire. Africa does recieve handouts from pretty much every nation. I know they're recieving this, because every time I turn on the tv, some aid organization is begging me to sponsor one of their kids. You know someone is sending money, because they stay in business. What do they do with all this money? It gets squandered amongst the government elite. Until Africa makes even the smallest initiative not to be a war-torn, poverty striken, aids epidemic, there's nothing the world can do. It's like treating an alcoholic, or quitting smoking. The alcoholic or smoker has to make the first step. Africa's not doing it.

pleh greedy bastards... (the politicians) i cant believe it >.< We could give so much more, but those men just ride around in their bentleys as 100s of people die because they cant spare a few grand >.<

It makes me sick

Quote:

---

And I'm not remotely surprised that Live 8 did, essentially, nothing.

---

I'm sure it put a lot of money into the hands of many people. 'Sides, didn't Pink Floyd unite? That's a good thing, in my book.

Anyway - Africa's situation is dire and desperate. Sending money and ending their debts will do nothing - as the people are too busy simply staying alive, and the goverments are so corrupt and disconnected from the people, it doesn't even matter.

I say... let time do its thing. Let them act on their own. The west should help a-plenty, but it cannot initiate the process. Africans need to want their countries and situation to change.

Stopping shagging all the time and doing it with random people would be a good step in the elimination of AIDS. Actually growing food would be a good step in preventing starvation. Just ideas, you know.

growing food in africa is becoming harder as farmers are pushed out by subsidised over producing of the west.

we cannot let time do it's thing africa has consistantly gotten poorer and not ending this now will just result in millions of more deaths.

imperialism..... i'm gonna be a bit odd here. maybe getting rid of imperialism was in fact a bad thing. africa has gotten far poorer since independence from european countries. most countries followed the heroes who gained them their independence. but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and these heroes turned into dictators. and if we still had control of these countries maybe this wouldn't have got to this stage and we would ceetainly be in a better poition to end it.

African nations aren't exactly famous for their powerful militaries. If the best solution is conquering them all and fixing the situation by the most overt means possible, it'd probably be less expensive than constant charity donations untill Africa fixes itself. Of course, the US can't go into this alone, guns blazing. We'd need European support at the very least, but I imagine the nostalgia for the old days of colonial imperialism must still linger in some of Europe's more nationalistic citizens.

Quote:

---

growing food in africa is becoming harder as farmers are pushed out by subsidised over producing of the west.

---

1. You can grow food just for yourself.
2. Yes, but the imports lower prices so more people can buy food and eat and survive.
3. Saying we can't sell goods to Africa is against the free market(which you supported in saying we need to abolish tariffs).
4. We shouldn't be subsidizing our farmers in the first place, but that's another topic. :)

Quote:

---

we cannot let time do it's thing africa has consistantly gotten poorer and not ending this now will just result in millions of more deaths.

---

We cannot make a country improve - unless we invade, conquer, and order around. We cannot make them use condoms, we cannot make them give a damn about their government, we cannot make them spend the money we give to them wisely. The only thing we can do is what voluntary charity agencies have been doing for years - trying to educate them. Everything else is superfluous at best and counterproductive at worst.

You're saying we should invade and overthrow their corrupt governments to save lives. But in the case of Iraq, you're saying we shouldn't have done this exact same thing. I can't even fathom the mess of contradictions that entails.

1. with what money to buy seed? fertilizer? in case of famine or drought?
2. but screw over african farmers so leaving afirca dependant.
3. maybe for africa the free market should be one way traffic?
4. no you shouldn't say 30,000 african kids.

we don't not need to invade a country to make it improve? since when was that the only way? (rhetorical question it was of course a few years ago). we can simply follow the africa's commission's advice. we can help save millions of lifes a year. we can help people eat daily. then and only then will these people care about their government.

"we cannot make them spend the money we give to them wisely" i do hope that comment was about the african governments not the people.

i didn't say invasion was a good idea (well it is for sudan and zimbabwe). i said letting go off them as an empire has caused this mess. and if we hadn't done it maybe things would be better or more controllable. but we cannot go back to these ways. those days are over. we can just do our bit. and our bit is doing everything possible to not have 50,000 a day die of starvation.

Africa is a farming society is it not? non-industrialized in other words.

If I recall the majority still make thier living from farming. So therefor selling cheaper subsidized grains and such takes away the african's jobs making more starve. after all without a job you can't buy food.. even if it is cheaper. Now selling cheaper industrialized goods to them may work since from my knowledge they aren't overly industrialized over there.

Disclaimer- I really don't know much about where exactly they stand in industrialized/farming category.

africa is mostly farming as industrialising is quite expensive and rigth now building factories is not the first thing on their agenda.

but we are missing one point on this thread which i think needs to be addressed now. the other failure of the g8. the envrionment (well in fact it was only america's failing but we can't blame everything on the great satan in such and up-front manner as they might get upset, lol). america for the countless time running blocked any porgress on global warming.

as a scot i'm not too bothered about global warming. it's rainy and cold here so abit of heat would do us a good. and then we can eat bananas and coconuts on the mountains as the english drown.

but beside that. it's a huge issue. and one that continues to not be addressed by america. apparently the waves have to be washing around the empire state building before the american government decides that now might be a good time to do something. of course it would destroy the american economy. which is proved by the absolute poverty the other 7 countries are now living in *cough*.

they even had the cheek this year to take the first line out of the conclusion which said the world was heating up. and aside from admitting that climate change had a little bit to do with us humans being around. it did little else.

but in a week where america refuses yet again to move on climate change, people died of drought in africa, the coral reefs are reduced by carbon emmissions, the sea gradually rose. the ice caps slowly melted. there was something else in the news. a hurricane heading towards florida. with wether like that estimated to get more regular. either america moves or it's people will suffer. then and maybe only then when americans drown will america decide that it might be a good time to listen to the 7 of the other countries in the g8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Ok, so you're all for an isolationist policy...except for this case. Why? Is 30,000 dead kids/day where you draw the line? "We shouldn't invade another country unless they invade us first...unless 30,000 kids/day are dying." Does the government have to be killing all of those kids - or, say, if an epidemic(AIDS) wiped through a village, killing 30,000 babies, would that warrant invasion?

"We must invade Africa." "Why?" "Because kids are dying." "But kids are dying here all the time from abusive parents to starvation to disease and any of a whole list of things - what makes Africa special?" There is no objective reason(that I've heard, anyway).

---

... God [/i]damn[/i]. That's never happened before. You just absolutely nailed my argument. I can't come up with any arguments not based on pathos/ethos to explain this. It is my belief that the most effective way to solve the problems is invasion, but I can't make an objective argument for it.

At any rate, even if it were widely believed to be the best option I doubt there would be any form of invasion and imperialism (I mean we're not touching Sudan or Zimbabwe, so anything big enough to cause it seems far, far away.), so it falls on the African people to do their best. Which is where abolishing trade subsidies and the like come into play...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

but we are missing one point on this thread which i think needs to be addressed now. the other failure of the g8. the envrionment (well in fact it was only america's failing but we can't blame everything on the great satan in such and up-front manner as they might get upset, lol). america for the countless time running blocked any porgress on global warming.

---

America failed the world because the G8 agreed to talks with numerous developing nations specifically regarding climate change, with the aims of creating a fair system which won't cost several million American jobs? Ok, if you say so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

as a scot i'm not too bothered about global warming. it's rainy and cold here so abit of heat would do us a good. and then we can eat bananas and coconuts on the mountains as the english drown.

---

I like your total absence of knowledge on how Global Warming is supposedly to take effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

but beside that. it's a huge issue. and one that continues to not be addressed by america. apparently the waves have to be washing around the empire state building before the american government decides that now might be a good time to do something. of course it would destroy the american economy. which is proved by the absolute poverty the other 7 countries are now living in *cough*.

---

Well, think about it. Everyone is fond of throwing around numbers about how much in the way of resources the US uses - so the effect would inevitably be greater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

they even had the cheek this year to take the first line out of the conclusion which said the world was heating up. and aside from admitting that climate change had a little bit to do with us humans being around. it did little else.

---

Generally, the US isn't sure that Humanity is entirely responsible for climate change. Given that at the height of the Roman Empire they had vineyards in Britain, and that during the Holy Roman Empire and period of Cathedrals the temperate was much lower than today, you can see that the global temperature changes quite happily and rapidly of it's own accord. It's not that it doesn't happen so much as it's not necessarily our fault, and it's also fairly optimistic to think our level of technology is going to contain the global temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

but in a week where america refuses yet again to move on climate change, people died of drought in africa, the coral reefs are reduced by carbon emmissions, the sea gradually rose. the ice caps slowly melted. there was something else in the news. a hurricane heading towards florida. with wether like that estimated to get more regular. either america moves or it's people will suffer. then and maybe only then when americans drown will america decide that it might be a good time to listen to the 7 of the other countries in the g8.

---

The Vostok Ice Core quite plainly shows that over thousands of years the Earth's temperature fluctuates not by two or three degrees, but varies within a range of over twelve degrees. Had Humakind reached a technological society just a few thousands of years earlier or later, we'd probably be having an extremely similar argument under extremely different conditions. Scotland might be a sheet of ice, or it might be a baking costa.

I will wait until convincing evidence which is not based on post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, which takes into consideration the massive fluctuations in any period of Earth's history, and which isn't reliant on incomplete and often entirely awry cloud modelling in computer programs. Also, it's become politicized - which means there are only extremes to go to. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground, there is only 'Global warming will kill us all!' or 'There's no such thing!'.

Finally, I don't have acres of faith in consensus science.

Yes, but we should abolish trade subsidies because we shouldn't be subsidizing in the first place(that is a left-over product of the late 19th century when the government subsidized railroads were charging too much for the farmers to ship their goods - the government chose to fix a problem that started with government subsidies by throwing more government money at it). And if farmers want to continue to export to Africa themselves, then they can.

Quote:

---

1. with what money to buy seed? fertilizer? in case of famine or drought?

---

In the case of a drought, the farmers can't make a business anyway, eh?

Quote:

---

2. but screw over african farmers so leaving afirca dependant.

---

Actually, I would think this would be great for Africa - they have a large supply of food, which means they can work on industrializing, and then they can sometime later go back to farming with better equipment. Of course, that'll have to wait until they learn to use condoms to stop dying from AIDS and they leave their corrupt governments and establish their own, free ones(or just overthrowing their governments). Again - choices they have to make before they can improve their situation.

Quote:

---

3. maybe for africa the free market should be one way traffic?

---

That is appalling.

Quote:

---

but we are missing one point on this thread which i think needs to be addressed now. the other failure of the g8. the envrionment (well in fact it was only america's failing but we can't blame everything on the great satan in such and up-front manner as they might get upset, lol). america for the countless time running blocked any porgress on global warming.

as a scot i'm not too bothered about global warming. it's rainy and cold here so abit of heat would do us a good. and then we can eat bananas and coconuts on the mountains as the english drown.

but beside that. it's a huge issue. and one that continues to not be addressed by america. apparently the waves have to be washing around the empire state building before the american government decides that now might be a good time to do something. of course it would destroy the american economy. which is proved by the absolute poverty the other 7 countries are now living in *cough*.

---

1. Global warming is not a factual crisis. Do you want to know how it got started? In the late 60s early 70s by hippies who took high school biology. "We're destroying so many trees...these trees inhale CO2...since all the trees are dying...the free CO2 just floats up in the atmosphere..." In the 70s there were two opposite theories: that the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise global temperatures; or that the CO2 int he atmosphere would shield the sun and lower global temperatures. It was blatant nonsense(80% of our CO2 -> oxygen cycle comes from plankton, not trees) - and it was only given credibility later when scientists noted rises in global temperatures. Whether it is catalysmic or not, whether it's really caused by industralization or not, is not fully known or understood.
2. Ruin the economy? New fuels, new branches of competition. Scientific break throughs help an economy. Since alternative fuels would probably be cheaper than oil is now, it would help the economy further by lowering the cost of living. However, as in all economic issues, it is not government business to tell us what to do - the people must make the demand of the scientists and coorporation, who follow that demand with supply. People want hybrid cars? People started buying them from Honda and Toyota, and now Ford's coming out with hybrids. The government can't just say "ok, we're not going to allow businesses that deal with oil." A government that can do that is a dictatorship.

Build factories and hire them as cheap labor. It's popular in other third world countries. What Africa lacks in wealth and power, it makes up for in population. Africans will make money independent of the gamble that is farming. A few wealthy entrepreneurs will make more of a fortune by paying less than satisfactory, (but still pretty much better than the current situation) wages. Once a country is industrialized, and you get the people working hard in factories, they'll have the money for education, food, and they'll be too tired to have so much unsafe sex that Aids runs rampant. The first step to becoming a modern nation is near exploitation labor. Or at least, that's how it worked in other nations. You have to have oppressive mill factories before you bring in Information Technologies and other High Tech industries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Yes, but we should abolish trade subsidies because we shouldn't be subsidizing in the first place(that is a left-over product of the late 19th century when the government subsidized railroads were charging too much for the farmers to ship their goods - the government chose to fix a problem that started with government subsidies by throwing more government money at it). And if farmers want to continue to export to Africa themselves, then they can.

---

Oh, I'm not disputing that they shouldn't exist in the first place, but rather stating that it's one of the few things which would make a difference that actually stand a chance of happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

1. Global warming is not a factual crisis. Do you want to know how it got started? In the late 60s early 70s by hippies who took high school biology. "We're destroying so many trees...these trees inhale CO2...since all the trees are dying...the free CO2 just floats up in the atmosphere..." In the 70s there were two opposite theories: that the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise global temperatures; or that the CO2 int he atmosphere would shield the sun and lower global temperatures. It was blatant nonsense(80% of our CO2 -> oxygen cycle comes from plankton, not trees) - and it was only given credibility later when scientists noted rises in global temperatures. Whether it is catalysmic or not, whether it's really caused by industralization or not, is not fully known or understood.
2. Ruin the economy? New fuels, new branches of competition. Scientific break throughs help an economy. Since alternative fuels would probably be cheaper than oil is now, it would help the economy further by lowering the cost of living. However, as in all economic issues, it is not government business to tell us what to do - the people must make the demand of the scientists and coorporation, who follow that demand with supply. People want hybrid cars? People started buying them from Honda and Toyota, and now Ford's coming out with hybrids. The government can't just say "ok, we're not going to allow businesses that deal with oil." A government that can do that is a dictatorship.

---

Whilst it is far from becoming, especially in this forum, my response can only be rendered thusly:

I'm my own MILF <333 Raistlin.

I'm fairly confident (Make that entirely adamant) that should global warming actually start having an effect, people will be quick to change.

we still have vineyards in britain........

i beg to ask and noone has yet explained it how a system of reducing co2 emmission which worked perfectly well in the 7 other g8 nations will somehow be totally different for america?

my thing about england was a joke if you missed it.

and the thing about the vostok ice core. notice the scale at the bottom. in 50 year gaps. well actually in 50 thousand year gaps. a huge difference to what has happened since industrialization in the last 200 years.

rasitlin why is saying that fre trade shoudl only be one way traffic for africa so aiding their economy appauling? helping save 50,000 lives a day is appauling? and to what cost?

i think the point about agreeing to kyoto improving and not damaging the american economy was my point.

garland here thinks that explotiation is a good thing and working these people to deaths ia a good thing and so al other points are void.

and when global warming does start to take greater effect than it is now except it will be too late. and the waves will be on manhatten and there will be little anyone can do about it. and maybe then america will learn to heed the warnings given it to it.

Quote:

---

i beg to ask and noone has yet explained it how a system of reducing co2 emmission which worked perfectly well in the 7 other g8 nations will somehow be totally different for america?

---

I have no idea. I'm not familiar with big industrial plants and CO2 emissions.

Quote:

---

and the thing about the vostok ice core. notice the scale at the bottom. in 50 year gaps. well actually in 50 thousand year gaps. a huge difference to what has happened since industrialization in the last 200 years.

---

Yes, and we used to have Ice Ages every 10,000-100,000 years. Rises and lowerings of temperatures is a natural cycle.

Quote:

---

rasitlin why is saying that fre trade shoudl only be one way traffic for africa so aiding their economy appauling? helping save 50,000 lives a day is appauling? and to what cost?

---

Because that's a dictatorship. The government should not have control of trade - either from tariffs or subsidies or anything else. And if the government stepped out of it, the farmers wouldn't get subsidized and wouldn't be shipping huge amounts of goods to Africa(or, if they did, it would have to be done independently or by independent distributors).
This is the problem with socialists - they look at the problem, and go for the "quick fix." This is how farming was subsidized in the first place - the rail roads were charging too much for the farmers to ship their goods. The problem was that the rail roads were government subsidized, meaning that the rail road didn't have to lower prices to meet demands - it would be paid anyway. Instead of doing the logical thing and stop funding the damn things, the government then started subsidizing the farmers - which, in this case, has proved to have even more consequences(the first of which is the government giving out all of this money taken from income tax, which is, again, another topic). The root of the problem must be taken care of, and in this situation, the root of the problem is government interference with free trade, which can't be solved with more government interference.

Quote:

---

garland here thinks that explotiation is a good thing and working these people to deaths ia a good thing and so al other points are void.

---

I think being paid minimal salaries to work in factories is a big step above sitting around and dying. But maybe that's just me.

Quote:

---

and when global warming does start to take greater effect than it is now except it will be too late. and the waves will be on manhatten and there will be little anyone can do about it. and maybe then america will learn to heed the warnings given it to it.

---

Again, there's no proof it will ever have a great effect. In fact, there's currently no proof that it is anything but a natural cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

garland here thinks that explotiation is a good thing and working these people to deaths ia a good thing and so al other points are void.

---

I think being paid minimal salaries to work in factories is a big step above sitting around and dying. But maybe that's just me.

---

Hm.. well being paid minimum wage isn't bad, as long as they follow humane standards. Not sure what should be called humane.. but the factory should definately be safe and sanitory.

there is proof of it being un-natural. that's the thing with the vostok ice. it has never ever happened this fast before. each time before it took thousands of years. and then suddenly we are supposed to believe that once we started pumping out co2 and vast vast quantities of it the global warming started and was at a much fatser rate than ever seen on this planet, and the two are totally un-connected.

but even making changes on the chance that this theory may be right isn't on the american agenda. because america likes the way it si right now and believing a theory the majority of scientists agree to and if true would cause catstrophic damage and huge loss of life.

and no subsidies are bad. when used to dump our over-produced goods on africa and destroy it's farmers. but if we make africa goods cheaper and stop driving down african prices and so their economies and people by our over and mass produced goods we may be able to start sorting things out.

africa does not need industrialisation. it needs food. and that isn't made in factories or with work shop conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

africa does not need industrialisation. it needs food. and that isn't made in factories or with work shop conditions.

---

They don't have industrialization now, and look how that has helped them.

you cannot industrialise a starving country. you cannot build factories when you are in debt. you cannot expect the starving to work.

they don't have industrialisation now. like the don't have much a agriculture left. what they do have left is starvation and misery. and none of this has helped anyone except some farmer in texas, france and devon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

you cannot industrialise a starving country. you cannot build factories when you are in debt. you cannot expect the starving to work.

they don't have industrialisation now. like the don't have much a agriculture left. what they do have left is starvation and misery. and none of this has helped anyone except some farmer in texas, france and devon.

---

Give me a plan that does not sacrifice the western world, and we can start from there.

why can we not sacrifice some of the richness we have with the people who have so few? why cannot we not live in a world of plenty where people don't starve to death in the tens of thouands a day?

why not give them some of what we have? why keep this misery going? and in fact it is getting worse. we have so much in the western world, would it be so much to ask to use some of that to end the starving of millions?

Quote:

---

there is proof of it being un-natural. that's the thing with the vostok ice. it has never ever happened this fast before. each time before it took thousands of years. and then suddenly we are supposed to believe that once we started pumping out co2 and vast vast quantities of it the global warming started and was at a much fatser rate than ever seen on this planet, and the two are totally un-connected.

---

That's bull - again, there's no proof(yet, anyway) that it's unnatural. They had an article on slash-dot a while ago on it - I'll search for it.

Quote:

---

why can we not sacrifice some of the richness we have with the people who have so few? why cannot we not live in a world of plenty where people don't starve to death in the tens of thouands a day?

---

Because it is not just OURS to sacrifice. You cann't "rob from the rich and give to the poor." If people want to voluntarily donate or invest some of their own money, that's their choice - and you cannot say it's right or wrong to do one or the other, because it's their money, their choice.

Quote:

---

why not give them some of what we have? why keep this misery going? and in fact it is getting worse. we have so much in the western world, would it be so much to ask to use some of that to end the starving of millions?

---

We have been giving for YEARS. Are you so blind that you can't see that it's not going to do a damn thing until they choose to help themselves?

the proof is not in anything physical. it is in the pace at which this is happening.

we can rob from the rich to give to the poor. it's for the common good. it's for 50,000 people a day 30,000 of which are children. and anyone who says that they will not give money to end this total and abolsute inhumanity is the height of greed. when you consider the huge differences in our planets between rich and poor. to not give money to end this is perpetuating the deaths of millions and that is more than the nazis ever did.

money is not absolute in this world. it is not the be and end all of exitence. death is.

who chooses to help themselves? the starving millions? cos the have much choice in the matter? they chose this? this starvation is out of some kind of laziness? in what way can people help themselves in africa when they are dying of the inabilty to put food to mouth?

also we have been giving aid to africa. but as much debt has been demanded as aid given. and they could invest it in farms. but then the west stamps on them with the tarrifs and subsidies. they could build hospitals but they have no doctors. they could spend it on schools but they have no teachers. they could spend it on feeding the hungry. and that is all there is left to do. to stacnate and grow poorer and more in debt. at one point this cycle has to be ended. and if that is at the cost of half a stick of gum a day so be it.

to stand back and watch africa starve is genocide in the greatest genocide ever committed.

Quote:

---

we can rob from the rich to give to the poor. it's for the common good. it's for 50,000 people a day 30,000 of which are children.

---

Hello, Stalin.

Quote:

---

and anyone who says that they will not give money to end this total and abolsute inhumanity is the height of greed.

---

It's their choice. It's their life and their money. People are responsible for the bad consequences of their lives, and so they are equally responsible for the good, i.e., profit. If I want to sent money to Africa, I will - but I sure as hell won't if you tell my I'm obligated to.

Quote:

---

money is not absolute in this world. it is not the be and end all of exitence.

---

That's what I'm saying. You don't realize how you're contradicting yourself.

Quote:

---

who chooses to help themselves? the starving millions? cos the have much choice in the matter? they chose this? this starvation is out of some kind of laziness? in what way can people help themselves in africa when they are dying of the inabilty to put food to mouth?

---

They choose not to use condoms and die horrible deaths from AIDS. They choose to let the corrupt governments stay in power, they choose not to establish their own social systems in their own interests. Yes, it's their choice, and it's one they have to make before we can do a damn thing to help them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

you cannot industrialise a starving country. you cannot build factories when you are in debt. you cannot expect the starving to work.

they don't have industrialisation now. like the don't have much a agriculture left. what they do have left is starvation and misery. and none of this has helped anyone except some farmer in texas, france and devon.

---

China and India are growing at significant speeds in terms of production, GDP, and so forth. How did this happen? They started with sweatshops. Then they were able to move on to heavy industry, now they're moving onto the next step of production, and in the future they will move on to hi-tech stuff. Sorry, there's no quick fix. It is indeed a long walk, a lon walk to prosperity. It'll take years, decades even, and that's unpalatable. Everyone wants an instant fix, to throw $4trillion at Africa and believe that's all there is to it.

Quote:

---

it's for the common good.

---

Justifying things with 'for the common good' has led to quite a few fun incidents in Human history. 50,000,000+ dead until Mao, 20,000,000+ more under Stalin. Hitler used similar logic, he just excluded certain groups. The common good leads to Brave New World, We, and 1984.

Quote:

---

africa does not need industrialisation. it needs food.

---

And how exactly will millions upon millions of starving people be fed, if not through industry?

Really, you are contradicting yourself every step of the way. Face it - Africa has, for some reason, halted its advancement. Culturally, politically and socially speaking, it has stayed in ancient times, with despotic regimes and no realisation of rights or anything of the sort... and with lots and lots of people. That is never a good combination.

So, untill they decide to help themselves, and use the massive amounts of money they are already getting for stuff other than weapons and the enrichment of the already rich... there's little point in even discussing the situation there.

You can't make a person walk, if he doesn't want to. You can drag - but how long will it be before you are sick of it?

India is a good example of how a country in a very desperate situation has begun to rebuild itself. Singapore has made phenomenal changes as well. My own nation has risen from the ashes of genocide and constant war. All you have to have, is a force of will. If you don't have that... no amount of money will help you.

millions are fed not by factories. now this is a wacky idea i'm gonna fly through the air here but lets try it. millions are fed from food...... which is grown on farms. wow that looks wrong. food grown? on farms? in africa? noooooooo can't be right.

i'm like stalin because i don't want to see 50,000 people a day die? becuase i think something should be done about it? something that will have zero impact on people's lives?

and it is not the choice of anyone to watch people in africa die. well it shouldn't be a choice. at the least it's criminal negligence resulting in the genocide of an entire continent. but truly it is actively taking part.

i don't think the people of darfur, uganda and all the other starving countries in africa choose to live under their governments. but what else to do? fight? with what? these people can't afford food let alone a klashnikov. and there will be no long walk to freedom if these people are too weak from hunger to move.

we are obligated to help africa. watching millions die is not being human? milking the money cow while people can't drink is wrong and should not be allowed. we have so much in this world. saving africa would not change that. and it needs to be done. we cannot stand back and sit on the fence like this anymore. millions of deaths a year from starvation. more from preventable disease and causes. why can anyone refuse to end this?

Quote:

---

i'm like stalin because i don't want to see 50,000 people a day die? becuase i think something should be done about it? something that will have zero impact on people's lives?

---

It's not that you want something done - it's the way in which you want it done. "we can rob from the rich and give to the poor." No, we can't rob from anyone. You can try to persuade people to voluntarily give money, but once a government or any person crosses the line and takes what they want by force - whatever it is, whatever it's for - that government becomes a dictatorship, or the person becomes a thief.

Quote:

---

and it is not the choice of anyone to watch people in africa die. well it shouldn't be a choice. at the least it's criminal negligence resulting in the genocide of an entire continent. but truly it is actively taking part.

---

No, it's not. Fault implies responsibility, and responsibility can only be taken on by choice. I have a responsibility to my kids - if I have any - because I took on that responsibility by choice. I help out my family, not because of any forced obligation, but because I took on that obligation by choice - I do it, because I want to. I'm watching my little sister today - I'm responsible for her - by choice. I do not choose to be responsible for every other person on the planet; they have not earned any undue effort on my part. I would give a dollar to a friend I trust and respect over a complete stranger because my friend has earned it, and I choose to, and so my action has worth. Any action done out of external obligation instead of internal choice has the same moral value as someone pointing a gun to my head and making demands.

Quote:

---

we are obligated to help africa.

---

My only obligation is to myself. The "common good," the "public," the "masses" are NOT more important than the individual, nor does the individual have any obligation to any of those imaginary, uindefineable terms.

Do I think exploitation is good? No. I think reality is good. Cloud No.9, your idealism won't help anyone. Life sucks. All we can do is try to minimize the degree. Africa will never be a Garden of Eden. They tried farming. It failed. Other nations tried living on farming and failed. When farming can no longer support a population, the population doesn't become the world beggar and live off the wealth of nations that HAVE half a clue on how to succeed. They industrialize. They modernize. Africa is a relic of a forgotten era. They need to enter the modern world. Industrialization is a way of life. They don't need money to industrialize. The poor aren't going to own the factories. They aren't going to fund them. The rich Americans and Europeans that like this sort of thing are going to do that. All Africa needs is space (it has plenty), and man-power (it has plenty). Right now, Africa can choose to continue to starve on a subsistance farming economy, or do what the rest of the world did and industrialize. The rest of the world isn't in as bad a shape as Africa. I think the choice is clear. And as for food not coming from factories, but coming from farms, the sarcasm isn't necessary. Unless you live on a farm and grow your own food, you probably know about grocery stores. The money they make at the factories would buy food. The food would be grown on real farms with machinery and industrialization- farms that can grow more than one family's minimum sustinance. Grocery stores and factories are a lot better than famine and starvation. Stick to what works. Subsistance farming doesn't work.

I don't consider exploitation of the productive more idealistic than "exploitation" of the non-productive. The latter is done voluntarily; the former is done by force. I consider it tyranny.

Maybe it's tyranny, maybe it's not. That wasn't my concern. The point is, Africa needs to change if it wants to survive. They have two choices: do what works, or fail. They already live in tyranny anyway. Tyranny with some free money and food on the table is better than tyranny and starvation. Once they figure out how to work for more than day to day survival, they can begin to think about things like rights and freedom. As it stands now, the only freedom they'll see is death.

No, Garland, you misinterpreted me - I'm saying that the "exploitation" of "forcing them" to work in factories is voluntary, and thus productive, and that the exploitation of the productive to the non-productive("robbing from the rich and giving to the poor") is involuntary(i.e., coercive - by force) and thus tyrannical.

I was agreeing with you. :p

Oh, cool! Glad to be on the same side.

if taxes are theft then i would rather america be stripped of it's armed forces and left defenceless than have another day where 50,000 people starve to death. take the police of my streets and take away my schooling system if taxes are theft and so it is okay to watch millions starve to death. if taxes are theft then the defence forces should not be paid for.

lack of action resulting in death is manslaughter and so blame. it does not mattwe who started this or who's fault it was. the problem now is ending it.

life is not earned. it is a right to be expected.

and yes even if this half stick of gum a day would have such an inhumane effect on your life. the life of one man to save millions is worth it. the greedy individual is never more important than the starving masses. the man that has plenty compred to the masses who have nothing is not an even balance.

but then again that is irrelevant. noone is going to starve in the west over a half stick of gum. 30,000 children today will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

if taxes are theft then i would rather america be stripped of it's armed forces and left defenceless than have another day where 50,000 people starve to death. take the police of my streets and take away my schooling system if taxes are theft and so it is okay to watch millions starve to death. if taxes are theft then the defence forces should not be paid for.

lack of action resulting in death is manslaughter and so blame. it does not mattwe who started this or who's fault it was. the problem now is ending it.

life is not earned. it is a right to be expected.

and yes even if this half stick of gum a day would have such an inhumane effect on your life. the life of one man to save millions is worth it. the greedy individual is never more important than the starving masses. the man that has plenty compred to the masses who have nothing is not an even balance.

but then again that is irrelevant. noone is going to starve in the west over a half stick of gum. 30,000 children today will.

---

A stick of gum costs like 3p dude. And taxes are theft, by definition. Taking money from people without their permission, on pain of imprisonment? Sounds like theft to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoden

the AIDS thing is because they are catholics


for some stupid reason the smurfed up catholic religions wont allow use of condoms or abortion


there should be more Aid and tell Africa to take care of itself with the money

---

That's not true! It's because they don't have the medical resources over there that we do!
I think poverty in Africa could be abolished, it would take absoloutely ages, but it can't be impossible, if every country and continent helped Africa it wouldn't be in the state it's in now!
My cousin is out in Africa, helping to teach children, she's only 20! I feel sorry for her because the children have been taught she is white, and therefore isn't alive, she is one of the living dead! I think that is so scary!
But anyway, back to topic! :p
I don't think enough was done at the G-8, I think much more could have been done, I think the World needs to realise that we should help other countries!

"A stick of gum costs like 3p dude." exactly. 3p a day. is that something hard to ask for? £11 a year? is that what is theft? money which can be found down the back of the sofa? pennies which are normally cast aside when you leave the shop. the price of a bottle of wine a year? this is the cost of life and death to these people. 3p a day. are we to begrudge them that for that extra bottle of wine?

what madness is it to argue against giving 3p a day to help save 30,000 children a day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"A stick of gum costs like 3p dude." exactly. 3p a day. is that something hard to ask for? £11 a year? is that what is theft? money which can be found down the back of the sofa? pennies which are normally cast aside when you leave the shop. the price of a bottle of wine a year? this is the cost of life and death to these people. 3p a day. are we to begrudge them that for that extra bottle of wine?

what madness is it to argue against giving 3p a day to help save 30,000 children a day?

---

It's madness for two reasons.

Firstly, because aid isn't helping. As has been shown by economic report after African refugee.

Secondly, because 3p a day isn't going to make a difference anyway. That was my entire point in commenting on the cost of a stick of gum.

And yes, it's still theft. It's theft if it's a piece of lint.

Quote:

---

if taxes are theft then i would rather america be stripped of it's armed forces and left defenceless than have another day where 50,000 people starve to death. take the police of my streets and take away my schooling system if taxes are theft and so it is okay to watch millions starve to death. if taxes are theft then the defence forces should not be paid for.

---

There are other means of government income than income taxation - and we might not even need it at all if the government were minimized to only protect freedom(military, law courts, police). If we needed it, there could be other means of financing the government, or even a voluntary income tax(which would add another competitive part to businesses).

Quote:

---

lack of action resulting in death is manslaughter and so blame. it does not mattwe who started this or who's fault it was. the problem now is ending it.

---

That presupposes that there is an obligation to that person. If a woman watches her baby son suffocate, that's murder. I have no obligation to people in Africa - what I give is by choice. Putting obligation over choice nullifies morality.

Quote:

---

life is not earned. it is a right to be expected.

---

Yes, a right. Therefore, I have the right to live my own life. Freedom(a right to your life) presupposes that each life is value in and of itself, which means that there can exist NO obligation outside of the individual, unless the individual takes that obligation upon himself by choice. Externally mandated obligations(not by choice) are horrible and wrong by any moral standard that truly values life.

Quote:

---

the life of one man to save millions is worth it.

---

You just proved that your arguments aren't even worth consideration. I'm not even going to reply to you anymore - anyone who listens and actually agrees with that tripe deserves the results.

A mere 3p a day can save an African? I would expect then, that Cloud No. 9 has saved many Africans and has proof. Perhaps the best way for you to gather support for your cause is to lead by example. Sacrafice your wealth and save a whole village. Otherwise, it's pointless to expect everyone else to do so.

Edit: I was tired and said some borderline over the top comments that weren't necessary. Don't want to cause problems. Sorry.

It doesnt matter how much money we throw at them, its just getting sucked up toa crooked government and what is a evil dictator going to do with that extra cash? start a help the homeless programe or build a new palace wing and kill and mame some people?
Other former colonies of imperialism developed beyond any expectations, because they choose to work for it.
They need to get of there starving arse and actually WORK themselves to make there land a better one, its there job not ours because its there culture, there ways there lands. If they could trade fairly, yeah super that may help.

I dont feel like driving ourown country into poverty, Ill have to continue this later.

sorry my maths was wrong. if a stick of gum is 3p. it's half stick if gum a day to meet the africa commission goals. which makes it 1.5p. and that makes it £5.50 a year. we are not talking here about impoverishing ourselves. noone will be driven into poverty over £5.50 (less than 10 dollars for the americans) a year. no country destoryed. no one will die of starvation. noone will die of cholera or some other nasty water disease. but without that amount of money. people will die.

and garland i give 10% of all my earnings to charity. which is more than 10x any country does.

Splashing out money to tyrants does soon build up, we dont have have machine where we push the handle and money spills out, Not so wise on the verge of a resession either, Our own money is NOT infinite thats we have tax that goes up.

And as I said it does not matter how much we give them, it wont make a diffrence because the people who need to never see a penny.
If it was so simple as that, they wouldnt keep getting handouts. Its there screwing country and there driving themselves into poverty by electing and keeping those crooked goverments.
Give a tyrant more cash, he will keep himself in luxury and mame people.
If they CHOOSE to finally get a form of goverment that actually wont spend all there tax money on a palace, and it doesnt actually have to be a democracy, (seeing as it failed many times before and it clearly doesnt work for them) a form that suits THEM not us, belive it or not there is many forms, we can finally open trade barriers and they can finally start working themselves out of poverty.

it needn't go into the hands of tyrants. it can go straight to where it matters. building schools, water supplies, farming equipment. providing food.

i doubt £5.50 a yeah is going to damage any western country in the slightest. if you can justify to me why you with all the money you have, have more right to that money than 3 billion others living in poverty then fine.

ps. "it's mine" is not an argument.

yes it is, I dont want my money stolen form me.
that amount builds up to a large sum, that Africa needs and it may seem strange to you but we also need money ourselves *gasp*
And how would that larger amount of monet be distributed throughout so many nations? Pixies? how can you garentee that it wont be taken, not maintained or whatever afterwoods? you cant. Keep your sticky hands of my cash.

I would just like to point out that I would willingly volunteer a portion of my income to federal need IF the government was broken down to its basic purpose(army, police, law courts) - so I would know exactly where my money was going and what it was to be used for, because then it would not be for "federal need" - but my own. If I agreed with what the money was going for(and I would, if it went to those aforementioned departments), I would give a portion of my income. But I do not agree with welfare and public education and "eminent domain" and the war on Iraq and giving Africa more money - how can I be forced to fund those things which I disagree with? The only way is by force - by the political power of a totalitarian system. And if I do want to donate some money to some other cause, that cause should be to a private charity, not some government-subsidized mess - and again, because I choose to.

from what i can see here. there is wuggly blight - who doesn't care if africans die because he believes that £5.50 a year is a huge price to pay for not having 50,000 people a day die. and thought it may sound odd. you ain't gonna die from not having that measly amoutn of money. really your not. it's not gonna dent your life in the slighest. i bet if you looked hard enough you could fine 2p a day on the street. or by keeping the pennies you get when shopping. and no it wouldn't be pixies sharing out that money. it would be in fact *gasp* people and *gasp* banks and *gasp* charities. you don't really care for africa you care for that very cheap bottle of wine you will take in it's place. i hope you never have to go to darfur or uganda and see what your greed brings. i hope that you never have to go and see death in thousands, smell it, watch children starve to death with swollen bellies, listless eyes and can't even move. and i hope that one day you will change from this way and not be damned. god bless your soul.

raistlin on the other hand keeps jibbering on about the government. and how much he is taxed. he also says you doesn't believe in giving more money to africa. we should forget that the amount of money we are talking about is miniscuil. we should forget the huge benfit it would bring. but he wants to pay less in taxes. raistlin wants more money for himself but does not belive in helping those with none.

there should be no choice in watching 30,000 children starve. it is not a matter for which one should opt out of. to rather keep his £5.50. it should not be a matter up for discussion. this matter is more important than anything else on this planet. (well it ties with global warming). it is more important than american security. it is more important than terrorism 3,000 americans, 200 spaniards, 54 biritsh. it is as important as 50,000 people dying consistantly everday. and to stop that should not be optional and should be the first thing we pay for, not a battelship, jet or tank.

From what I can see here, you're still completely missing the point.

I mean, it's not even worth trying to open your eyes to anything at this rate; how many times do we have to attempt to remind you that what you want to do is lower your government to a totalitarian slave-pen?

Yes let them die cloud 9. When there all dead perhaps you can actually get a clue and LISTEN. Click your heels all you wont you cant help them until they help themself.

i just can't see taxes as some totilatarian evil.

and it's not opening my eyes to a truth it's opening my eyes to a believe. a believe which i understand but loathe.

Quote:

---

raistlin on the other hand keeps jibbering on about the government. and how much he is taxed. he also says you doesn't believe in giving more money to africa. we should forget that the amount of money we are talking about is miniscuil. we should forget the huge benfit it would bring. but he wants to pay less in taxes. raistlin wants more money for himself but does not belive in helping those with none.

---

Wait, what's that coming near? It's the logic train! *whoosh* And there it goes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i just can't see taxes as some totilatarian evil.

---

*sigh* No one is saying that either, Cloud. (At least, not that I see).

Let me please get your attention so that I can hope to show you what I mean.

The people of Africa need help. Let's suspend all of the usual statements that I feel (for your benefit) such as "Why aren't they doing anything themselves?" "Why can't they fix their problems?" "If America needed help, would anyone come to our aid?" Of course, these are reasonable questions, because the obvious answer is that the rest of the world (mostly Europe) hates America for no good reason and just wants us to pay money for Africa because they blame us somehow. OK, sorry, let's suspend all of this first before I can answer the question easier.

If Africans (I am now talking about the average, individual African) can't do anything, because their governments are that corrupt and they are dying of starvation in the street, then we really should do something. Or should we? After being told to go after and help Africa and we do, would we be policing the world? Do the people of Africa need help "somehow more somewhat" than the people of Iraq did? I'm just getting my facts straight. If we're going to jump into irrational wars that the world goads us into doing, will we (once again) be hated for our foreign policy (which is rightly hated; it's based off of everyone else's need)?

But, let's say that what you want is "passive" agression. A sort of peaceful means, such as stealing money. This is not an answer. Taxation itself isn't theft, but it can be: taxation without representation is theft. So is taxation that goes to movements, ideas, and policies that run counter to our own policies.

Yes, I hate to admit it: I am an individual, so I do have my own interests at heart. This is not bad. I am an American, so I do have America's interests at heart. This is not evil.

Taxation is only justified when it's going to a government function that is objectively defined. Taxation in America that goes to our law courts, our police, hell, even our schools, whatever, is not theft. We can argue if the taxes really should go to certain areas (should schools be publicly funded?), but no one is feeling like the government is "stealing" money. This is one of those "morally gray" areas we hear about.

The government's functions do not include charity. Once more, and please understand: the government's functions do not include charity.

I'm not the typical Objectivist (I don't know if I'm an Objectivist; I agree a hell of a lot with everything Raistlin says, but I do have a few things I don't entirely agree with). I firmly believe in the virtue of charity, and I think that helping others is a good thing. I try to help others as much as I come. I believe that this is a virtue because I think that human life is a sanctified thing, and I strive for life at all times. However, like Objectivism, I don't hold that it's a "necessary" virtue. I don't look down upon the people who don't give to charity. I believe it's a personal choice and no one should stop me.

Of course, I do not advocate suspending some virtue in order to help Africa.

I've been avoiding the practical reasons for not helping Africa, for obvious reasons. You have heard them all. "They will fund corrupt governments" being the major one. I understand that funding things they need directly can help, but first off, how do you propose to do that? Secondly, how do you know the governments will respect those things? I can imagine the government will just take over any school it sees fit. You are believing that these governments are just as bad as greedy, evil America, but in reality, these governments are much, much worse.

Do not tell me that it's just a really small price, which somehow justifies taking it from every American by force. What's really the sad part is that your destroying your best argument. I'll let you know that if that is true, I didn't realize how easy it was to help "30,000" lives a day. (I don't believe you, but saying I do.) However, if you want to raise money, you need to appeal to people's reason. Go out there; you'll find that Americans are generally happy, good people (believe it or not!) and they are more than willing to help out in charities that they understand. I told you myself that I would give you money if you could convince me it was just. You have not convinced me. If anything, you wish to chain me and make me work for it regardless of my convictions.

"But we're talking about human life!" But human life is what I'm talking about, as well. You cannot force others to do that. Yes, even if 4 billion people are at stake. No, it's not because they are black; most Americans are not as racist as you believe. If the opposite were true, and America was failing, and you were screaming at the Africans (who were doing well because they can, because they're free to do so*[see below]) to help America, I would be sick to my stomach that the handouts I received were from people who were forced to give them to me. Every bite of food I had I would know someone had to work extra for. I would feel the guilt of a thief.

If you default on the false premise that Africa needs help somehow and that Americans can be taxed something in order to pay for it somehow without being immoral somehow, I'll laugh in your face. It's the weakest argument you could ever offer a people who believe in the sanctity of human life.

*This might have something to do with it, but if Africa was free like us (or more free; imagine!) and was doing very, very well (let's say they had 25% of the world's wealth), it would not be an evil. It's perhaps important to realize that money is produced. It's not just there. Distribution of wealth is a really childish way to look at money.

this isn't really about america. the half stick of fum a day was from every rich western nation. which is most of europe too. (we do not all hate america).

we do not need to fight in africa. we can let what wars for justice that will come, come when the people are ready, fed and educated. there is no need for war. i only support war in the case of one of the 3 rules.

i'll explain why i think some things should be taxed. i believe that if something is going to affect a vast amount of people. and i believe that africa is something that should be helped by everyone who can. and if it is a matter for all the people it is a state matter. i don't believe people should be able to opt out of helping this. and so if it is for all people then it should be a state matter. i cannot understand any reason why people should not be willing to help africa.

"But, let's say that what you want is "passive" agression. A sort of peaceful means, such as stealing money. This is not an answer. Taxation itself isn't theft, but it can be: taxation without representation is theft. So is taxation that goes to movements, ideas, and policies that run counter to our own policies."

sorry can you clarify? are you talking about taxing african nations?

and i believe that having your own interests at heart is a bad thing when it impacts on other people in the same way it does in this topic. to put it another way. african tyrants and their palaces have their own interests at heart. this is not good. one person cannot come before the people. that is why dictatorships exist, one mans greed. it is what we are arguing against.

as i said before it is not just americans. so i am not talking out of spite or hatred. this money would come out of my pocket too. which i am willing to do. and i do know alot of americans. most of whom i get on with. "some of my friends are american". i have nothing against american people. i have things against certain americans, it's governments systems and a few other things. but i don't hate americans. it is the country not the people.

i wasn't trying to say before that americans are racist. it's a simple psychological fact. if the people on the tv are crying in your language and look like you it has more impact.

i believe in the sanctity of human life. that is why i believe in acheiving aims with the lowest possible loss. i believe 1.5p a day is that lowest possible loss. which if you do the maths, is 0.07% of my minimum wage pay. i probably pay more for chalk in schools. (not that that is a bad thing of course). but in the grand scheme of things some things need to be sacrificed. that's not some stalinist theory. it's basic economics.

and actually....... 0.7% of a countries income is the agreed limit that should be spent on africa. so it already comes out of your pocket in a way. (though i think it comes out of import or export duty so it doesn't really affect us)

hachifusa and all others reading and posting in this thread. if you do believe in charity would you at this time agree a set amount you will give? or is it a hollow thought?

I wasn't planning on responding, as some of the above comments reach of level of such abject depravity and stupidity that I feel comments are unnecessary and redundant. But I'm bored and feeling masochistic, so for the sake of the slightly moronic, I'll clarify:

Quote:

---

raistlin on the other hand keeps jibbering on about the government. and how much he is taxed.

---

I'm not gibbering on how MUCH I'm taxed - I don't like the way I'm taxed, which is by force - which, by definition, contradicts freedom. This is fact.

Quote:

---

he also says you doesn't believe in giving more money to africa. we should forget that the amount of money we are talking about is miniscuil. we should forget the huge benfit it would bring.

---

Huge benefit? Africa has received billions and billions from countries, including the US, and it has done NOTHING. You don't need a rocket scientist to tell you "ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS WILL DO NOTHING!!!" It has done nothing, it will do nothing, because the Africans aren't ready to help themselves. Once they are, things will happened - but things start with THEM, not us.

Quote:

---

but he wants to pay less in taxes. raistlin wants more money for himself but does not belive in helping those with none.

---

This is just stupid. Have you not read a word I've posted? 1. I would gladly give money to the federal government and to certain private charities that I care about, but I would only GIVE. I will NOT allow my property to be confiscated for the sake of someone else, I am NOT a sacrificial animal to be butchered piece by piece by any government, and I do NOT recognize the government's so-called "right" to point a gun at me and demand that I fork over the cash.

Socialism is allegedly built around "love for man." In every single instance any socialist system has been instituted, it has achieved the opposite. Yet another fact.

Just one example: consider public education. Education in the US is ranked something like 25th, which is pathetic for such an economic powerhouse. Why? Public education. Government-subsidized businesses(and a school is a business) does not NEED customers. The average family cannot afford to pay taxes and tuition for a private school, so they end up being FORCED to go to the local public school. The taxes are ripped out of every family's household in the community, whether they actually get any benefit from the public school or not(contrary to popular insistence, public school is not free - it is free only for an evergrowing minority of very low lower-class, which is continually growing because of other such socialist systems). The funds for the next school year are already there, and the school is guaranteed a paycheck - as long as taxes are collected. Teacher's for public lower, middle, and high schools also suck because their wages are determined by what the local government feels like giving them - and one public school offers similar wages as the next.
The cure for this? Privitization. Do I even need to explain why? The upshot is that there would be competition, quality would increase, cost would decrease, more people going to better schools. The end result is clearly better.
But yet socialists decry that we must lower our standards so that the 1% of the population who STILL couldn't afford education(even after costs lowered so much, and with whatever private charities would available) can have a crappy education.

"Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth. Communism is the even distribution of poverty."

Socialism is not pro-life, it is anti-good. Yet THAT is called an "ideal" for the "love of man" or "love of life." Hypocrisy.

I could cite plenty of other examples. The antitrust laws provide several horrible examples(and has a very dubious history); Britain's "brain drain" of the 60s was caused by socialism; the Great Depression was caused by socialist regulations on the economy.

Lasseiz-faire capitalism would improve everyone's standard of living, even the lowest-class citizen who aspires for nothing and does nothing. Socialism not only ultimately doesn't do a damn thing for the lower-class, it ultimately forces other people down lower. Yet THAT is for "the public good" and "to protect life."

Ayn Rand(who explicitly prophecized Britain's "brain drain" with Atlas Shrugged in the 50s) called socialism "the hatred of the good for being good" and "anti-good, anti-mind, anti-man, anti-life." The love of man my ass.

I will finish this rant by citing the famous ALCOA alumiminum antitrust case, where ALCOA was convicted of "intent to monopolize"(an absurd statute by any rational stand-point). This was the majority opinion:

"Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists thst it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion that progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it is opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections, and the elite of personnel." - Judge Hand.

It was punished for being good. For providing lower prices. For benefitting everybody by having the best quality goods at the lowest prices. And that ruling came from socialist regulations of business. The whole "common good" thing is bull.

And that is the last I'm going to say on this topic. Anyone who wants to discuss more can PM me or find me on AIM.

Word.

raistlin we're talking about africa. not about public schools. how else should you be taxed "mr raistlin can you pay us taxes please for like the army and schools and stuff." "umm..... no cos i like stuff for me". cos that would so much work........

you didn't say whether or not you would take me up on the idea of giving up a set amount of money or percentage to charity each month. of your own free will and to who you please. or where they hollow words?

You seemed to of not got his point, I suggest you read his post again.

i read it fine last time. he rambled on about capitalism. this isn't about an economic system. this is purely about justice and life. whether or not we should just let 30,000 african kids die a dar or whether it is a human duty to end this.

try reading it, there was alot of very good points, moreso on why throwing billions at them wont work.

yes we also need to abolish trade tarrifs and the black hole debts which suck in billions.

otherwise whatever miney we do give to them no matter how good a government it won't matter. most countries in africa give more money in owed debt than on education and health combined. that is one of the huge problems. and we can get around illegtimate governments anyway. but just now we are part of the problem.

The fact that this time it was a Burgerking and not a McDonalds that got destroyed as a symbol of American capitalism is quite amazing! Does G8 ever give any result? Pff...

A disappointing response, but at least it's a start ... Maybe we were naive to think one day we would wake up and find the suffering of thousands was over.But better humanity tried to make a change instead of continuing to sit back and do nothing at all.