About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well then, sorry about the repost.

Post 21

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Our money is not the government's to give.
I am confused here. I must be very naive in how US government operate. Aren't Congress and the President of US authorized by its people to decide how the tax money should be spent?

Although I don't always agree with their spending plans, but this time I happened to agree with Bush's position to help Asian Tsunami victims. I also think this is an investment that US will get some better values in return compared with many of its other oversea projects. To help in the name of the country also have a bigger or different impact than to help in the name of private organizations.


Post 22

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 5:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong Zhang wrote:

Our money is not the government's to give.
I am confused here. I must be very naive in how US government operate. Aren't Congress and the President of US authorized by its people to decide how the tax money should be spent?
The Congress is supposedly limited in how it can spend the funds it receives by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Charity is not one of its authorized uses.

Of course the Congress hasn't paid any attention to the Constitution in many years -- or rather only when it suits their purposes.

Post 23

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What I find disturbing is the idea that other countries will criticize the U.S.A. for not giving enough, claiming that we are "too stingy, " while Colin Powell says that the cited aid amount is not "the final figure." And there is talk that our generous aid will be used to win favor with the international community as a pseudo-apology for not getting approval to invade Iraq.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/01, 7:48pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jon: "If reaching people and attracting them to Objectivism is the goal, then it’s foolish. Right now people are watching video of unspeakable loss. They are wishing planes and boats moved faster. No one is thinking: “Damn that government of mine that helps instead of letting ME do the helping.” Thus, no one is approached positively by that ARI piece at this moment. If I was new to Objectivism and today that ARI piece was my first introduction…"

Quite right, Jon. ARI has no sense of reality whatever. I was horrified by this article. There is not a single word expressing sympathy for the (so far) 150,000 dead and those who love them. ARI people come across just as their most dedicated critics believe them to be: as heartless monsters. If this article were my first introduction to Objectivism, I'd run for my life.

For a point like that of the article to be made in any human way, a long and elaborate philosophical groundwork would need to be laid -- such as Atlas Shrugged and most of Rand's philosophical writings. And even then, for such a point to be made at this time is a kind of savage insensitivity that ARI seems to be a master of.

Barbara


Post 25

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Barbara and Jon here.  If ARI considers itself an organization committed to promoting Objectivism, and if an important aspect of promoting Objectivism is reaching a new and uninitiated audience, then I think the marketing and 'packaging' aspect of this op-ed was a missed opportunity.  A more tactful way of approaching the topic would be an article entitled "Why Foreign Aid Should Be Privatized," or something along those lines.  The article could have first focused on the moral issue of why it's wrong for the government to be in the charity business, and then once that case is made, it could then going to why even in events as catastrophic as the tsunami, such spending is still not justified.   
(Edited by Pete on 1/01, 9:08pm)


Post 26

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What I find disturbing is the idea that other countries will criticize the U.S.A. for not giving enough, ...
Joe,
I agree with your comments. I notice that the criticisms are not from the the actual disaster countries - they at least have maintained their decency and dignity. It is particularly sneaky to connect US's good will with Iraq.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 8:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Like I was saying earlier, I think a dose of cold water is exactly what people need. You didn’t hear before 9/11 as much on how we need to respond to terrorism as after. It’s the same here. Stuff happened and this is what we think about it and if it hurts your feelings too bad, suck it up and do the right thing. Yes what happened was a tragedy and as individuals we should do what we can to help, I’d like the same done in my place. But it doesn’t make what the government is doing any more right and if want to highlight this issue, look at the news its EVERYWHERE so THIS IS THE TIME to make your position known and in a firm and unyielding way. That is what ARI did and personally, I’ve come to the point where I can see some people are just not going to get it and continue to evade the truth that the government giving OUR money away is wrong. If you want to say “we should always give away our money to help people” fine I get that, we’re on completely opposite sides. But if you say “Well the government shouldn’t be just handing out our money like that, but…” I have nothing to say to you, if you’re going to flip-flop and compromise on your values then there is nothing a constructive argument from an objectivist can do for you.

Post 28

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 9:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am sure that the unfortunate would appreciate the help of Americans as well as people of other countries; I found it particularly touching that many tourists put their vacations aside to volunteer.
It might have been better had the ARI pointed out the wrongness of government to appropriate funds, while showing the voluntary outpouring of concern and help as the proper antidote to forced charity, as proof that people will voluntarily help others out of good will. And they could have used the story of the Twentieth Century Motor Factory from ATLAS as an example of Rand's ideas as a tie in to Objectivism newbies.

Post 29

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 3:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ARI frequently mistakes soundbites and gauranteed publicity as good publicity.

Promoting a philosophy is not the same as being a media starlette -- there very much is such a thing as bad publicity. That is, if what you are publicizing is your philosophy, rather than your own personal controversiality or "freshness."

Yet perhaps forced controversiality is what ARIs donors want to see, and perhaps pleasing them is more important to ARI than persuading strangers to accept Objectivism. 


Post 30

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 8:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am a little curious. A few months ago, hurricanes caused tremendous destruction in Florida and in other states. Federal aid poured in.

What is the fundamental difference between giving federal aid to Florida and giving aid to the tsunami victims? Is there a difference?

coaltontrail

Post 31

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Coalton,

There is a difference in that the government is giving to its own citizens rather than the citizens of another country.  Of course, those of us of an Objectivist or libertarian persuasion would take issue with any such spending, but I suspect that even among those who feel gov't should engage in charity, most people would concede that a goverments first obligation is to its own citizens first. 


Post 32

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And the fact that it was OUR money in the first place. We don't own the tsunami victims a single thing and if we want to help them, and we should, then we should do it freely and not forced to by the government.

Now what Bush just did by sending out Clinton and his father to collect private funds is EXACTALLY what the government should be doing. We have an interest in helping so the government should encourage people to help, not force them.


Post 33

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 7:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clarence Hardy wrote:"And the fact that it was OUR money in the first place. We don't own the tsunami victims a single thing and if we want to help them, and we should, then we should do it freely and not forced to by the government."

I live in Colorado. Do I owe anything to the victims of Florida hurricanes? On what grounds can the goverment take *my* money (even if it is only a fraction of a penny) and give it to someone whom I owe nothing?

My point is that the two instances cannot be differentiated from an objectivist's point of view.

Incidentally, your use of the adjective 'OUR' is interesting: what gives you a right to what I own (my money, or my property)?

coaltontrail



Post 34

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I use 'our' because when the government takes it, they don't differentiate where it comes from; so it forces us to view it collectively.

And you're wrong about the objectivist view; under yours I can never say "this is my country". This is my country, I help pay for it and it suffers every time one of those damn hurricanes hits. I’m from Southern Louisiana, I’ve evacuated before so I know. The people of Florida did pay for that relief so how can you say they're the same as Indonesians?

Post 35

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clarence Hardy wrote :"And you're wrong about the objectivist view; under yours I can never say "this is my country". This is my country, I help pay for it and it suffers every time one of those damn hurricanes hits."

It still does not require *ME* to pay for it. Does it?

" I’m from Southern Louisiana, I’ve evacuated before so I know."

Your personal experience, although unfortunate, is irrelevant in this discussion.

"The people of Florida did pay for that relief so how can you say they're the same as Indonesians?"

Your implied assumption is that the taxes Flordans paid was sufficient for their relief, which may or may not be true. If it is not so, which is quite likely, then the relief fund must have come from other states and those who are not affected. In that case, I am not bound to help Floridans or you in your distress. So when the government takes my taxes and pays for your/Floridans' relief, it is playing the same role that you are asking it not to do in the case of tsunami victims. Only the specific individuals involved are different. Why should I consider you/Floridan to be any different from an Indonesian?


coaltontrail





Post 36

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 2:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

coaltontrail,

You are missing Clarence’s point: Some of the money given to Floridians was taken from them, so some of it is THEIRS. None of the money given to Indonesians was paid by them, so none of it is theirs. You asked for an objective difference. Clarence gave one. If you meant to ask a different question, ask it.

Jon


Post 37

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

These exchanges are frustrating to watch. Coaltontrail is saying expropriations for charity/disaster relief are wrong. He should reread Clarence’s earlier posts. I don’t see any disagreement.



Post 38

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 8:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Letendre wrote:"These exchanges are frustrating to watch. Coaltontrail is saying expropriations for charity/disaster relief are wrong. He should reread Clarence’s earlier posts. I don’t see any disagreement."

Perhaps it wouldn't be so frustrating if you notice the double standards used in arguing about the two cases. In the case of Florida, for example, I did not see a single posting in this forum objecting to the federal aid (correct me if I am wrong, and I will withdraw all my comments) and Clarence Hardy (as an example) does any extent of rationalization to justify it. On the other hand, for the tsunami victims, it is an absolute argument based on the 'hard principles.' Why? I will let you think about it.

For the record, I don't subscribe to the arguments I made. Their objective was to illustrate the inconsistency.

coaltontrail


Post 39

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 6:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cottontail, I’ve made clear the difference between giving aid to Florida and Indonesia so I’m not going back over that.

What I didn’t make clear and what I’m going to go over now is why a state in this country deserves disaster aid. First of all, most of the time they do not, I think we too often declared ‘federal disaster areas’ when they are not needed. In many disasters, the free market can easily pick up the pieces, that’s what insurance is for. But in a true disaster, there are simply too many people with too many needs involved for enterprise to handle. Frequently, local help is also damaged or destroyed so help must come from far away. The problem is disasters occur too infrequently for people to be completely prepared for them.

Take Florida again for example, you think the aid that was sent there was used to rebuild houses or building? Of course not, most people had hurricane insurance, they would be covered. What they didn’t have is food or clothes or clean water, the safe could have made it through the storm fine but what are you going to buy?

I look at aid to the states in two ways; both of them show that disaster relief is part of the government’s duty we gave it. The first is government’s duty to protect us from external and internal threats, just because a storm doesn’t have a mind behind it doesn’t make it any less of a threat. As citizens, we are responsible for our own protection to the best of our abilities but we have also charged the government with helping us too. Imagine if an invading army attacked part of a state and we later drove them out; wouldn’t the government be obligated to help with emergency aid? The second way is a type of insurance for the states. Imagine you went through an earthquake in California and when it was over, your house and property were in perfect condition but the rest of the city was a disaster. Insurance cannot work on a state wide scale because people have to be able to work together to survive and clean up everyone’s mess, not just their own; insurance does not lead to cooperation. We do not live in a vacuum and if we want to help ourselves, we have to help others. The government is the solution for this, we all pay taxes so in part we would get out money back, we can get emergency aid that we couldn’t get anywhere else, spreading disease would be kept to a minimum, and the economy would be up and running soon enough; even if you’re business survived, without general aid who would sell to?

Every state is hit with a disaster every now and then; hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, floods, blizzards, ice storms, you get my point. Cottontail is trying to say we have no more in common with each other then with Indonesians. This is a country, this is our country and most of us have a vested interest in either preventing disasters here or doing our best to aid the victims. Those interest are significantly less in other countries; they do not send money to help us, they are not fellow citizens, and they frequently work against our interests.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=51896117&cdi=0

Look at the man in the center left and tell me we should be helping these people.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.