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?
That's bullthere 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.- 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.
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.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?
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?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?
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.
Hello, Stalin.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.
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.and anyone who says that they will not give money to end this total and abolsute inhumanity is the height of greed.
That's what I'm saying. You don't realize how you're contradicting yourself.money is not absolute in this world. it is not the be and end all of exitence.
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.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?
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.Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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.it's for the common good.
And how exactly will millions upon millions of starving people be fed, if not through industry?africa does not need industrialisation. it needs food.
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.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.we are obligated to help africa.
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.
Knock yourselves down.
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.
Knock yourselves down.
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.
Oh, cool! Glad to be on the same side.
Knock yourselves down.
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.
Posting Permissions
