On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:33 PM, David Hobby<hob...@newpaltz.edu> wrote:
> This is an old kind of argument that is usually used > to support not taking action. It asks "How can you > worry about A, when B is so much worse?" That was a question, not an argument. And I am not being flippant. My point is that I am not arguing against helping anyone -- people can be helped with or without a government intermediary. > My answer is, "Why we'll work on both problem A and > problem B at the same time." In this context, that > means spending some resources inside the country, > and sending some outside to help problems there. > I support some humanitarian aid abroad, and feel that > most people do. We may well disagree about how MUCH aid > to send to the Third World, of course. We may well. I wonder if you know what percentage of US GDP goes to foreign aid, and what percent of that is non-military? I think it is highly likely that if people could individually choose what to do with the money that would otherwise be redistributed by the government, that non-Americans who are much worse off than most Americans would be helped a lot more than they are now. I have seen repeatedly here statements that say or imply that it is selfish or unethical to NOT send money to the US government to be redistributed to people in the US. But I just cannot see the ethics of limiting it to people within a political boundary. Why not send charitable contributions to where they will do the most good? And will that not often be outside the US? _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
