Wait, what's that coming near? It's the logic train! *whoosh* And there it goes!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.
*sigh* No one is saying that either, Cloud. (At least, not that I see).Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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:
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.raistlin on the other hand keeps jibbering on about the government. and how much he is taxed.
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.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.
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.but he wants to pay less in taxes. raistlin wants more money for himself but does not belive in helping those with none.
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.
"NPC: Sorry this house is sealed off because of Blight"
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.
"NPC: Sorry this house is sealed off because of Blight"
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.
"NPC: Sorry this house is sealed off because of Blight"
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.
Posting Permissions
