Foreign aid - good or evil?

[lucy]

In the - quite poorly named - socialistic shit-case thread (http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=19118) it was mentioned that it's the obligation of the rich countries to help the poor ones.
But is it? And is foreign aid actually benefitting the countries which receive it, or just a couple of corrupt politicians who fill their own pockets? Or even worse, does foreign aid support/lead to bad governance?

Personally i think that any aid should be going exclusively to women, since guys tend to spend it on booze and sex. But i'm the first to admit that i'm biased

[Matin]

me first!!

lmao

i think it's generally bad news. as has been mentioned it's rarely altruistic. also it seems to me that chronic mismanagement is the worst problem.

perhaps all aid packages should be distributed at gunpoint?

[Carpe Coma]

It certainly is not the obligation of the rich countries to help the poor monetarily, unless the rich county is at fault for the state of the poor country. On the flip side, it is generally wise to "aid" in the development of impoverished economies.

almost all monetary foreign aid is just positively spun bribery and is rarely in amount large to make a serious difference in the receiving country. It is entirely possible that foreign aid can prop up bad governments, especially military dictatorships.

Most non-monetary aid just prolongs bad situations. The aid is either "requisitioned" by the government or helps keep the population content enough not to revolt en masse against the situation.

The only positive cases of aid are of limited duration or infrastructure improvements.

[MMI]

It certainly is not the obligation of the rich countries to help the poor monetarily, unless the rich county is at fault for the state of the poor country

No legal obligation, but a moral one, surely. Does no-one have a duty to look after the poor? It's not their fault they are poor, any more than it's ours that we are rich - and by comparison, we are all loaded. We might think we earned our fortunes, but, by and large, we were born into it - or at least, born in a wealthy country where comfortable living is taken for granted.

I propose the wealthiest nation in the world should adopt the poorest nation in the world and share both nations' wealth equally; the 2nd wealthiest adopt the 2nd poorest and so on. And when that cycle's completed, if there is still a huge disparity, to do the same thing over again.

But it's just a dream ...

[Carpe Coma]

No legal obligation, but a moral one, surely. Does no-one have a duty to look after the poor? It's not their fault they are poor, any more than it's ours that we are rich - and by comparison, we are all loaded. We might think we earned our fortunes, but, by and large, we were born into it - or at least, born in a wealthy country where comfortable living is taken for granted.

No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor. The instant that it becomes a duty, charity starts to just perpetuate the problem as it removes the downside risk to behavior. I'm not saying that it is a bad idea, but charity can not be treated as a duty, else it will become abused.

It is correct that it isn't their fault on an individual case. That doesn't change that perpetual foreign aid, the way it is done by governments, only perpetuates the poverty. Which is why I said that the focus should be on economic and infrastructure improvements and not throwing money at the problem.

My problem with Foreign Aid is the miss-management. We just dump the food and money and hope it will get to the people who need it. Personally I would have the UN distribute it and if a third world govt starts saying they do not have the right to distribute said food/money, then the govt loses 25% of the next donation.

It doesn't matter what the U.N. does. Unless they hand deliver the aid, and only a day's worth at time, a large percentage will be stolen. This still doesn't address the issue of the aid either helping prop up lousy governments that are largely responsible for the rampant poverty, or helping feed the ongoing civil strife (which is why a lot of these countries are so poor). This will happen whether the aid is stolen or not. Reducing the aid because it was stolen won't matter either as it has no negative repercussions on the people/government that stole the aid. The best it will accomplish is teach the governments/warlords/what-have-you how to fool the U.N. into thinking that the aid wasn't stolen.

[MMI]

[QUOTE=Carpe Coma;797052]No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor.

Yes. Yes they do! At least, that's the way I see it. I hate to sound sactimonious, but I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

As for your assertion that charity removes the risks of "behaviour", I cannot understand the concept of poverty as a form of behaviour. Behaviour is a response to some kind of stimulus. What is poverty responding to or reacting against? Wealth?

Hmmm. Charity removes the risks of poverty by making people rich. Discuss.


Nevertheless, you are unarguably right to point out that small amounts of aid don't help much, and only massive support leading to reconstruction and development is enough. It might impoverish the donors somewhat at first, but both giver and recipient will benefit in the long run.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=MMI;797194]

I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

I can think of many things which are less moral! Killing someone without just cause (and yes, I know you don't believe there is ever a just cause) for one.

But morality is a slippery slope. It is far too subjective for real discussion. One person's morality is another person's sin. Don't you think those terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 thought they were morally correct in their actions? I'm sure they did!

[QUOTE]As for your assertion that charity removes the risks of "behaviour", I cannot understand the concept of poverty as a form of behaviour. Behaviour is a response to some kind of stimulus. What is poverty responding to or reacting against? Wealth?[QUOTE]
Actually, poverty is a symptom of, among other things, ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity.) People who don't know any different, who aren't aware that there may be ways out, are inclined to stay right where they are. I've seen, right in my own area, people who are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck who could really pull themselves out of the hole by selling a fraction of the land they own. But they won't do it. It was handed down from their father, or grandfather, or whoever, and they just have to hold on to it. So they starve themselves out of a sense of "tradition". Which is about as ignorant as you can get, in my book.

It might impoverish the donors somewhat at first, but both giver and recipient will benefit in the long run.

No, it will tend to move everyone to the same level, which would be far below the standards the donors are used to and far below the standards the poor would aspire to. Nobody wins, everybody loses, and there's nobody left to donate food or clothing. We all starve and freeze. Back to nature!!

[Carpe Coma]

No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor.

Yes. Yes they do! At least, that's the way I see it. I hate to sound sactimonious, but I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

As for your assertion that charity removes the risks of "behaviour", I cannot understand the concept of poverty as a form of behaviour. Behaviour is a response to some kind of stimulus. What is poverty responding to or reacting against? Wealth?

Hmmm. Charity removes the risks of poverty by making people rich. Discuss.


Nevertheless, you are unarguably right to point out that small amounts of aid don't help much, and only massive support leading to reconstruction and development is enough. It might impoverish the donors somewhat at first, but both giver and recipient will benefit in the long run.

I can think of plenty of things less moral. I have a delightfully imaginative mind *grin*

Poverty is not a problem that can be solved simply by throwing money at it. Rich in irony, I know. The problem isn't charity per se, it is that once charity becomes a duty it destroys the impetus for rational utilization of capital by the recipient.

I'll illustrate with an exaggerated example; say I am totally impoverished and you are doing reasonably well. Since charity is a duty, you fulfill your obligation to give me some of your wealth. For simplicity, let's say a $100 bill. I take that bill and set it on fire. Now we are back to were we were before, except you are $100 dollars poorer. Since I am now totally impoverished again, you are back to being obligated to hand me another $100 dollars. Since I am guaranteed an nigh-infinite supply, why should I care what I do with what I get? I have no reason to be rational in how I utilize your (and everyone else's) charity.

"But I wouldn't do that after seeing how you treated the last $100."

So I'll go to someone else who feels obligated, or I'll burn it when you aren't looking.

"Then, I won't give money"

I'll take what you give me, sell it for money, and then burn it.

I'm not arguing against the idea of charity, just that you can not treat it is a moral obligation without seriously hampering it's effectiveness. Ineffective charity destroys wealth and accomplishes next to nothing except create a dependence on part of the recipient. There are three kinds of people in poverty; those that can't, those that won't, and those that don't know how. Effective charity has to be able to ignore those that won't, help those that can't, and teach those that don't know how.

[steelish]

No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor.

Yes. Yes they do! At least, that's the way I see it. I hate to sound sactimonious, but I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

That has less to do with "duty" and more to do with humanity. I would agree to say that it is inhumane to stand idly by while others suffer or even die. But to say it is a duty is simply the wrong way to state it, in my opinion.

[DuncanONeil]

In 2006 the US alone gave $49 million to Bagaladesh and $213 Million to Kenya!

almost all monetary foreign aid is just positively spun bribery and is rarely in amount large to make a serious difference in the receiving country. It is entirely possible that foreign aid can prop up bad governments, especially military dictatorships.

[Thorne]

Personally i think that any aid should be going exclusively to women, since guys tend to spend it on booze and sex. But i'm the first to admit that i'm biased

Yeah, but at least they're buying the booze and sex from women. One way or another, they'll get our money!

[lucy]

Yeah, but at least they're buying the booze and sex from women. One way or another, they'll get our money!

Yeah, like the estimated three million women (and children) which are forced into prostitution and sexual slavery worldwide. I bet those women get filthy rich...

[MMI]

He was joking, Lucy.

Besides, the estimates can be seriously questioned. In the UK a law is being proposed that will make men guilty of a criminal offence if they use a prostitute who has been made a "sex-slave", even if the girl lies and says she is not one. This is because it is said that 80% of the girls involved are forced into prostitution. However, the BBC pointed out that those figures related simply to prostitutes who came from abroad, and were not indicative of how many were really sex slaves.

There is no equivalent law,envisaged, for example, for men forced to become rent-boys, or for women who use male "escorts".

I don't want to diminish your justified outrage, but are you sure your numbers are right? Or is it just another case of women protesting that they are men's victims?

[lucy]

Oops, my bad and my apologies. I admit i'm a bit touchy on the subject.
I've got that number from a book about slavery in our times and from an article in the newspaper i read (which is usually very reliable and probably one of the last newspapers which doesn't resort to "entertainment"). Since both figures were about the same i figured it's save to assume they're about right. But of course, one should never assume, so those numbers could be wrong.

But even Swiss law enforcement officials say that in Switzerland alone there are between 1000 and 2000 women who are forced into prostitution.

[Stealth694]

My problem with Foreign Aid is the miss-management. We just dump the food and money and hope it will get to the people who need it. Personally I would have the UN distribute it and if a third world govt starts saying they do not have the right to distribute said food/money, then the govt loses 25% of the next donation.

[DuncanONeil]

The sense of doing such a thing can be explained in a very few words. The UN "Oil for Food" program!

My problem with Foreign Aid is the miss-management. We just dump the food and money and hope it will get to the people who need it. Personally I would have the UN distribute it and if a third world govt starts saying they do not have the right to distribute said food/money, then the govt loses 25% of the next donation.

[MMI]

I agree, Stealth, even if we could argue about what would be an appropriate amount to withhold (if UN can't see it being distributed, then maybe all of it should be withheld).

But if withholding aid doesn't help, then I think the UN should muscle in and if the government objects, it should be neutralised until the aid problem is resolved.

(I feel like a right-wing reactionary saying this. I'll be telling them to embrace democracy next, whether they want to or not!!!)

[Matin]

MMI, it's not reactionism, it's only common sense. if you know your generosity is going to be abused, you don't extend that hand. or you take precautions.

[DuncanONeil]

Careful, people might accuse you of being a Bush!

I agree, Stealth, even if we could argue about what would be an appropriate amount to withhold (if UN can't see it being distributed, then maybe all of it should be withheld).

But if withholding aid doesn't help, then I think the UN should muscle in and if the government objects, it should be neutralised until the aid problem is resolved.

(I feel like a right-wing reactionary saying this. I'll be telling them to embrace democracy next, whether they want to or not!!!)

[MonsterMaster{vg}]

I hope this is at least a little on topic, lol. I believe that we in the States at least have lost our way and, hopefully, are on the way to finding our way back to the light.

Corporations have taught us that we have no loyalty but to them and the dollar. And the political climate over the last eight years has demande3d loyalty to its criminal activities. Morals were, and still are, corrupted by a religious sentiment that was based on a selfish and bitgoted premise. Poor people are not worth our time. God is this judgmental bigot that rewards only those who take care of themselves only.

MMI is correct. We DO have a moral duty to look after those with less. We have a moral duty to lift everybody up. Most of the poor are not poor because they are 'lazy' or corrupt.

Being human demands it.

[DuncanONeil]

Anti-thanks

I hope this is at least a little on topic, lol. I believe that we in the States at least have lost our way and, hopefully, are on the way to finding our way back to the light.

Corporations have taught us that we have no loyalty but to them and the dollar. And the political climate over the last eight years has demande3d loyalty to its criminal activities. Morals were, and still are, corrupted by a religious sentiment that was based on a selfish and bitgoted premise. Poor people are not worth our time. God is this judgmental bigot that rewards only those who take care of themselves only.

MMI is correct. We DO have a moral duty to look after those with less. We have a moral duty to lift everybody up. Most of the poor are not poor because they are 'lazy' or corrupt.

Being human demands it.

[MonsterMaster{vg}]

Thorne,

I would like you to cite the falsehood that poverty is due to ignorance. I can say, and I feel that it is true, that lack of charity or aid, is a sign of ignorance. I don't know that that makes it true or not, I believe it and could support.

Let's take foreign aid first. Most of the poverty, I feel, in Africa and Latin America comes from corrupt power in those countries. North Korea would be an example as well. If I am a North Korean farmer is it ignorance that keeps me in poverty and keeps me starving or is it the guy with a machine gun that keeps from aspiring to anything more. Poverty may be better than dying or having my family killed. That makes me pretty brave and smart (ANd I mean those farmers, I don't know that I would have that courage).

The same can be said for the people in Mugabi's Africa.

And in this country we have seen power being corrupt. The most recent example is the Bank Bailout. Without any conditions on the money, banks have hoarded, or used the money to buy up other banks instead of helping the people who are hurting.

And I even heard that the money is now getting into the hands of the same predatory lenders that got us in to this mess. And what about the homeowners. They are stuck with foreclosing and losing everything.

And the ignorant bankers are so short0sighted that they shore up their stockholders for the near term and destroy the financial systems of the world. These rich bastards are the ignorant ones. They get their short-term results and fuck the rest of the country.

Sounds pretty ignorant to me.

[DuncanONeil]

The home lending issue was not created by the banks!

Thorne,

I would like you to cite the falsehood that poverty is due to ignorance. I can say, and I feel that it is true, that lack of charity or aid, is a sign of ignorance. I don't know that that makes it true or not, I believe it and could support.

Let's take foreign aid first. Most of the poverty, I feel, in Africa and Latin America comes from corrupt power in those countries. North Korea would be an example as well. If I am a North Korean farmer is it ignorance that keeps me in poverty and keeps me starving or is it the guy with a machine gun that keeps from aspiring to anything more. Poverty may be better than dying or having my family killed. That makes me pretty brave and smart (ANd I mean those farmers, I don't know that I would have that courage).

The same can be said for the people in Mugabi's Africa.

And in this country we have seen power being corrupt. The most recent example is the Bank Bailout. Without any conditions on the money, banks have hoarded, or used the money to buy up other banks instead of helping the people who are hurting.

And I even heard that the money is now getting into the hands of the same predatory lenders that got us in to this mess. And what about the homeowners. They are stuck with foreclosing and losing everything.

And the ignorant bankers are so short0sighted that they shore up their stockholders for the near term and destroy the financial systems of the world. These rich bastards are the ignorant ones. They get their short-term results and fuck the rest of the country.

Sounds pretty ignorant to me.

[MMI]

It's not that your ideas are wrong, Thorne, so completely and utterly wrong, that I find so exasperating, but the reasonableness that you express them with.

It is complete twaddle to suggest that the actions of a few foolish people who could improve their situation by a simple expedient act prove that truly impoverished people are stupid.

(And I've never met a poor farmer, just like I've never met one who said he wasn't poor!)

[Thorne]

Please understand, people, that I'm not saying poor people are ignorant by choice. Far from it! Most of them, especially in third world and communist countries, are kept ignorant by design, because it is far harder for an ignorant population to mount a successful rebellion than an educated one. In any despotic government, it is generally the educated members of the population who are most suspected of subversion, not the poor and ignorant, or uneducated.
I recall reading an article about the citizens of Moscow during the Soviet regime who would pay steep prices for contraband MAPS of their own country! The Soviet government would publish inaccurate maps to keep their people ignorant of what was over the next hill, or across the river. Even city maps of Moscow itself were almost useless.
By the same token, a great many of the oppressed peoples of Africa and Latin America are kept ignorant of the greater world around them. This is done to keep them under control. If you don't know that things can be different, then you can't try to change them.
And this is how we, the supposedly rich nations of the world, can really help the poor. Education! Information! Letting them know that there are places where things are better and they can make things better for themselves.
This is the kind of ignorance which I am talking about. The lack of information, of an awareness of something better. Those poor farmers in North Korea aren't held down just by that guy with the machine gun. They are held down by their lack of any information of anything better. Their ignorance of the world at large. Throwing money and food at them won't change that. Getting the information to them will.
The Chinese are seeing this already. They have been forced to embrace a limited form of capitalism simiply because their people have been able to learn of how the people of the West truly live. Not the propaganda their leaders have been feeding them for decades, but the truth. And the internet will ultimately be their downfall. Oh, sure, they try to censor the access their people can get. But we have all heard of how even children can bypass controls designed to restrict their access.
But all of this presupposes a desire on the part of these people to build themselves a better life. Not waiting around for a handout, but actively trying to improve themselves and their families and their neighbors. The key is not financial aid or food aid or any other kind of aid, but education! Information is the currency of the world.
And the truth shall set them free!

[MMI]

I think what troubles Thorne is he thinks that, by helping others, he must be the loser. I think this is a mistaken notion, which lucy ably demonstrates. When more wealth is created, there is more wealth to share around.

I understand what you say about some rulers deliberately keeping their populations ignorant up to a point, but I don't think withholding information stops people knowing they are starving, and as far as I can tell, such policies are rarely successful. You say yourself that, despite the USSR's attempts to keep Muscovites in ignorance of their own city's layout, they soon obtained Western maps instead.

Mugabe cannot keep Zimbawean citizens ignorant, because they know things do not have to be the way they are. Only recently was Zimbabwe one of the richest nations in Africa. Now it is among the poorest. Mugabe blames Britain and the white population: he is using racism as a weapon of self preservation - but this argument belongs to another thread. (I wish Britain would invade, by the way, if no-one else in Africa will do anything.)

Latin Americans know how good life is in the north. There's no way they can be kept in igonrance of it.

The hunger North Koreans are experiencing is due (a) to the famine endured by that country in the 1990's following the collapse of the communist bloc, and to economic decline and falling levels of food production since. But North Koreans cannot change things without rebelling, and as you indicate, armed sentries, if such there are, prevent this happening.

I do not think ignorance is the explanation.


Small amounts of aid will keep people alive, but it will not create wealth. Therefore, I argue for larger aid programmes. And I am also prepared to argue for all necessary force to be used if those aid programmes are interfered with, whether that be by corrupt governments, tribal warlords, organised crime or petty embezzlers. Aid that helps develop a new economy or kick-start a stagnant one, so that, from then on, the third world can start to help itself: that's what I want to see. Surely, everyone would like that too?

I have no beef with small amounts of aid being given. It is all good, but massive aid is better than small amounts. Microcredits and micro finance are good ideas (I belong to an organisation that provides small loans to the financially excluded in the UK, and I can see this working although in an entirely different environment). But they are extremely limited in their effect, and they are not immune from corrupt administration or managment. The life of only one person at a time is improved, or one family, or one village if the credit is large enough, and this is just too damned slow to prevent large scale suffering elsewhere.

It is startling to see a developed country lke Italy cited as an example of how aid can be appropriated by organised crime, but the southern parts of that country are relatively poor. I would sugggest Italy is a bad example of a country in need of support, however, because it is within its own power to set matters right, even if it would require an unimaginable effort of will on the part of its citizens: it seems that crime is a way of life in Sicily, and corrupt government also. However, no-one is in danger of starving, but if that changes, we have a duty to step in. The point that organised crime negates all the good intentions of those who give aid is a good one, and it must be recognised and dealt with.

At this point, I've run out of steam!

[Thorne]

I think what troubles Thorne is he thinks that, by helping others, he must be the loser.

Well, yeah! I've always known that! People are always ranting about how donations to charity are tax deductible. So if I donate $10 to charity, I get to deduct $1 from my taxes! I'm still out 9$, and the government is out $1. So where's the plus for me? (Numbers not necessarily right, but they get the point across.)

I understand what you say about some rulers deliberately keeping their populations ignorant up to a point, but I don't think withholding information stops people knowing they are starving, and as far as I can tell, such policies are rarely successful. You say yourself that, despite the USSR's attempts to keep Muscovites in ignorance of their own city's layout, they soon obtained Western maps instead.

Look at the common people in places like North Korea, and ask them if the policies are successful. Many of them have been told, repeatedly, and believe that the West is responsible for all of their problems, and their leaders are doing all in their power to save them. They don't get any real information from outside their own propaganda machines, so they have no way to know what's true. And the Muscovites didn't start getting good maps until after the start of detente when things started opening up and more information from the west was getting in. In fact, that kind of information seepage was, in my opinion, largely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet regime.

(I wish Britain would invade, by the way, if no-one else in Africa will do anything.)
...
I am also prepared to argue for all necessary force to be used if those aid programmes are interfered with, whether that be by corrupt governments, tribal warlords, organised crime or petty embezzlers.

Now wait a minute, isn't that sowing the seeds of colonialism? Isn't that how the British and the American's wound up with their colonies and/or territories? It sounds like you're willing to use force to keep others from using force.

Latin Americans know how good life is in the north. There's no way they can be kept in igonrance of it.

And that's why they keep heading north. And that's why the Latin American governments don't try to stop them from heading north. They would be thrown out of their cushy jobs if they did!

The hunger North Koreans are experiencing is due (a) to the famine endured by that country in the 1990's following the collapse of the communist bloc, and to economic decline and falling levels of food production since.

This may be true, but how many of those who are staving know this? As I said above, they are told it's our fault, not the failure of the Communists.

I do not think ignorance is the explanation.

Ignorance is one contributing factor. Not the only one, by any means, but a large one, in my opinion.

[DuncanONeil]

You have never understood the things that Thorne has had to say. You tend to only focus on the words and not what he actually says!

I think what troubles Thorne is he thinks that, by helping others, he must be the loser. I think this is a mistaken notion, which lucy ably demonstrates. When more wealth is created, there is more wealth to share around.

I understand what you say about some rulers deliberately keeping their populations ignorant up to a point, but I don't think withholding information stops people knowing they are starving, and as far as I can tell, such policies are rarely successful. You say yourself that, despite the USSR's attempts to keep Muscovites in ignorance of their own city's layout, they soon obtained Western maps instead.

Mugabe cannot keep Zimbawean citizens ignorant, because they know things do not have to be the way they are. Only recently was Zimbabwe one of the richest nations in Africa. Now it is among the poorest. Mugabe blames Britain and the white population: he is using racism as a weapon of self preservation - but this argument belongs to another thread. (I wish Britain would invade, by the way, if no-one else in Africa will do anything.)

Latin Americans know how good life is in the north. There's no way they can be kept in igonrance of it.

The hunger North Koreans are experiencing is due (a) to the famine endured by that country in the 1990's following the collapse of the communist bloc, and to economic decline and falling levels of food production since. But North Koreans cannot change things without rebelling, and as you indicate, armed sentries, if such there are, prevent this happening.

I do not think ignorance is the explanation.


Small amounts of aid will keep people alive, but it will not create wealth. Therefore, I argue for larger aid programmes. And I am also prepared to argue for all necessary force to be used if those aid programmes are interfered with, whether that be by corrupt governments, tribal warlords, organised crime or petty embezzlers. Aid that helps develop a new economy or kick-start a stagnant one, so that, from then on, the third world can start to help itself: that's what I want to see. Surely, everyone would like that too?

I have no beef with small amounts of aid being given. It is all good, but massive aid is better than small amounts. Microcredits and micro finance are good ideas (I belong to an organisation that provides small loans to the financially excluded in the UK, and I can see this working although in an entirely different environment). But they are extremely limited in their effect, and they are not immune from corrupt administration or managment. The life of only one person at a time is improved, or one family, or one village if the credit is large enough, and this is just too damned slow to prevent large scale suffering elsewhere.

It is startling to see a developed country lke Italy cited as an example of how aid can be appropriated by organised crime, but the southern parts of that country are relatively poor. I would sugggest Italy is a bad example of a country in need of support, however, because it is within its own power to set matters right, even if it would require an unimaginable effort of will on the part of its citizens: it seems that crime is a way of life in Sicily, and corrupt government also. However, no-one is in danger of starving, but if that changes, we have a duty to step in. The point that organised crime negates all the good intentions of those who give aid is a good one, and it must be recognised and dealt with.

At this point, I've run out of steam!

[MMI]

Very revealing post, Thorne.

1. You clearly know what your dollar is worth, but you don't care what it can buy if it doesn't buy it for you.

2. I'm not sure I agree with what you say about North Koreans and Muscovites, but I'm not in a position to argue against it. But you can't tell a starving person he's not hungry and make him believe it! You can't tell the world that there's no cholera in your country, when hundreds of refugees are spilling over your borders, dying of the disease.

3. I wish Britain would invade Zimbabwe because Mugabe is killing his citizens by violence, neglect and design. He has contempt for his people and for all nations, because he feels safe inside his borders and when travelling on a diplomatic passport. Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia was a British colony. That gives us a "paternal" interest in the well-being of the people of that country and a duty to help them. If the African countries surrounding Zimbabwe are too blind to see what's going on over the borders, then it's up to us.

You bet I'm willing to use force against Mugabe and his ilk to prevent mass deaths of the innocent. Is what I propose any different from invading Iraq to protect the Kurds?

4. I thought it was your argument that Latin American countries tried to keep their citizens ignorant of the wealth that could be had in the north.

5. OK - Let's say that, in the case of North Korea, this is true. Does that justify not trying to help them. And if the answer is "yes" does it also justify not trying to help anyone else (unless they say thank-you nicely).

6. I have conceded ignorance might be a factor in N Korea. Not anywhere else.

... In my opinion, that is.

[Thorne]

Very revealing post, Thorne.

1. You clearly know what your dollar is worth, but you don't care what it can buy if it doesn't buy it for you.

And your point? Of course that's my primary concern! That's why I work for a living. That's the whole point of it, after all.

2. I'm not sure I agree with what you say about North Koreans and Muscovites, but I'm not in a position to argue against it. But you can't tell a starving person he's not hungry and make him believe it! You can't tell the world that there's no cholera in your country, when hundreds of refugees are spilling over your borders, dying of the disease.

No, you can't do that, but you can make him think it's someone else's fault.

3. I wish Britain would invade Zimbabwe because Mugabe is killing his citizens by violence, neglect and design. He has contempt for his people and for all nations, because he feels safe inside his borders and when travelling on a diplomatic passport. Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia was a British colony. That gives us a "paternal" interest in the well-being of the people of that country and a duty to help them. If the African countries surrounding Zimbabwe are too blind to see what's going on over the borders, then it's up to us.

You bet I'm willing to use force against Mugabe and his ilk to prevent mass deaths of the innocent. Is what I propose any different from invading Iraq to protect the Kurds?

No different, I agree. And actually, in this instance, I tend to agree with you: the people there would probably be better off if we could move in and oust Mugabe.
After all, look how much happier the Iraqis are, now that Saddam is gone. (My, the irony is hot tonight!)

4. I thought it was your argument that Latin American countries tried to keep their citizens ignorant of the wealth that could be had in the north.

No, that's the communist countries, primarily. The Latin American countries, primarily Mexico, are more interested in foisting off their surplus populations on the US, letting them know how to get here, helping them even. It's better for the leaders' pocketbooks if the poor go north than if they stay and raise a rebellion.

5. OK - Let's say that, in the case of North Korea, this is true. Does that justify not trying to help them. And if the answer is "yes" does it also justify not trying to help anyone else (unless they say thank-you nicely).

If the only way to help them is to invade their country, like in Iraq or, as you suggest, Zimbabwe, then perhaps not helping them is justified. Invading could result in far more deaths of innocent civilians than starvation would.
And I don't expect a thank you. Just don't hate us for trying to help.

6. I have conceded ignorance might be a factor in N Korea. Not anywhere else.

... In my opinion, that is.

Please understand, by ignorance I mean lack of education and/or information, not lack of intelligence. And that kind of ignorance can be found anywhere.