Well, sure. I’m all ears. What did you have in mind?
Heh.
Ha!
Hahahahahahaha!!
Whew, I needed the laugh.
No offense to you, John, really. I find your boundless faith rather touching, actually…
State interest pure and simple. State interest Mace. It’s not uninterested charity any more than my former Swiss Masters charity was. It’s public relations, it’s buying market access and influence. Pure and simple, cost of doing business. Sam rather accurately captures the rational for this. Think Bismark.
One can complain as if this is a matter of personal charity, but the analytical framework is entirely wrong. The US already is the stingiest donar by % of GDP, I fail to see what there is to complain about. USAID slaps its little brand sticker on anything it touches (as well it should), so you’re getting bang for the buck at some level.
As to bullypulpit – I personally don’t see any rational reason nor can I recall anything in economic or political literature that supports the idea that foreign aid monies necessary to achieve major policy aims could be raised by cajoling. The idea really is risable.
Frankly, the US does not have the money, power, nor inclination to exert itself to save everyone everywhere. AIDS is worst in Africa right now, although it does come close in some Asian nations.
Geez, some of you surprise me. The President could announce tommorow he wqas releasing his just-discovered True Meaning of Life and you’d be PO’d at him.
-
Probably. But that’s another thread.
-
Yes
-
As some have posted, AIDS is one disease that is fairly easy to avoid in an educated, industrialized society such as the US. And if you truely believed that foreigners with AIDS are a big threat to the US, a better place to battle it would be Asia, not Africa.
Anyway, Thanks to the various posters to this thread. I had hoped to stir up some libertarian thought by tossing out a controversial subject. Somewhat sad to see that that viewpoint is starkly absent from this board these days.
Consider the orphan problem – “More than 5.5 million children in eastern and southern Africa, at the epicenter of the epidemic, have lost their mothers or both parents to AIDS” (cnn). Depopulation and political chaos are inevitable, and the results already dwarf any military conflict in the region.
Libertarian philosophy is impotent at dealing with situations like this – all you have proposed is that the President cajole people. How? By making speeches perhaps? Ridiculous.
Somewhat glad to see that that viewpoint is starkly absent from this board these days.
The American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC) Trust for Philanthropy, publishers of “Giving USA,” released their estimations of total charitable contributions in the U.S. for the year 2001. Total giving is estimated at $212 billion for the year 2001"
from this site.
I guess by many standards on this board, that is a laughably small amount.
That’s real money voluntarily given to solve real problems.
Again, I had hoped for a debate about the rightness or wrongness of the gov’t forcing people to do good things, with the African money as an example.
What is, then, the limmit of how much good a government can force it’s citizens to do?