Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

Rate this topic


Zoso
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Zoso, is this thread about your emotions? Or, in your foul language, are you trying to say you disagree with President Bush's actions? If the latter, then why are you upset with this particular act of altruism and not all the others passing before our eyes every day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the altruistic donations the U.S. sends abroad, those in response to natural disasters bothers me less than most. This is because natural disasters are not directly the fault of those suffering. (Indirectly they may be, as anti-capitalism leads to poverty and thus sub-standard buildings and technology, paving the way for greater death from natural disaster). But this kind of charity doesn't reward bad behavior in the way most foreign aid does, which typically is sending money to corrupt governments as a reward for their anti-capitalist-created miseries, thus perpetuating the very cause of their problems in the first place.

In one context, a publicrRelations one, I prefer for the U.S., the #1 capitalist country, to lead the pack in sending aid and technology, stronger and better than the U.N., World Bank, or various other backwards countries. Better than the U.N. spending the U.S.' money over there and taking moral credit for it.

Mankind does face something of a universal struggle to conquer the dangers of nature, that's something for which I can have a bit of sympathy. Better would be private donations couple with official and private condolances.

Furthermore, the countries hit are not the worst countries in the world, nor major America-haters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, the countries hit are not the worst countries in the world, nor major America-haters.

I am reminded of the earthquake in Bam, Iran last year which killed (I think) about 30,000 people. While America-hating countries may not have been hit this time, they have been in the past and we have poured aid into their relief. I agree that the whole world has an interest in conquering nature, but does that mean that we should pay for other areas of the globe to conquer their own unique problems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will just add to BurgessLau's comment. Why do you find this act particularly disconcerting? The U.S. gives $2 billion a year to Egypt, several hundreds of millions to the Palestinian Authority, and who knows how many millions to corrupt African dictatorships. Not to speak of the money spent on the bureaucracy at home. Why whould this act, which is not the fault of the victims nor perpetuates the anti-capitalist mentality which the above do, be particularly offensive to you? I find that quite heartless of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last sentence makes you sound like Lillian Rearden. And it's not that the other aid doesn't make me mad too...it's just that this is the one all over the news right now. You can't justify bad behavior by pointing to worse behavior. It may be worse to send aid to anti-American countries, but that doesn't justify this, by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You started this thread by pointing to the fact that this particular instance of foreign aid pisses you off, implying it does so more than others. Otherwise, why not start a thread about giving the Palestinians hundreds of millions of dollars a year?

Compared with most of the other expenditures of the U.S. government, I see nothing wrong with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that there are things that are worse. But this is the one that's in the news right now. I don't turn on the TV and hear about all our aid to the Palestinian authority. What I do hear when I turn on the TV is people, Republicans and Democrats, saying that we have a responsibility to help those who were affected by these disasters. As soon as I hear people saying that we have a responsibility to help Palestine, every time I turn on the TV, I'll start complaining about that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting: A Norwegian from the UN has characterised America for being "stingy" in regards to the disaster relief aid. On Crossfire today, Paul Begala backed him up and then accused President Bush of reneging on 100 million dollars in third world aid.

What gets me is why it is our fault for not giving our money away. A week or two ago on CBC news, they did a segment on how the rich countries are at fault for millions of childhood deaths because we are not giving enough that we 'could easily afford.' That's CBC news though, the Canadian Pravda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush has pledged aid to the countries hit by today's tsunamis and earthquakes.  Does this piss everyone else off as bad as it pisses me off?

Absolutely! It is never justifiable to assist mystic and therefore epistemologically bassackward 'societies' to their next suicide attempt. The 'will of god' is understandable to the ehtically corrupt but the sanctimonious insistence that America rescue our Islamic nemesis, Indonesia, is insufferable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any suggestion that America has a ‘moral obligation’ to assist third world pig sties in the wake of their tsunami ordeal is grotesquely appalling.

Note the alacrity with which environmental kooks attack the West for its lack of 'compassion’ for not having donated the capital intensive technology which could have palliated this felicitous (yes, we mean it ) disaster. America, scream these half-naked brutes, must spare them from pestilence. If not for their stateside 'ecologically responsible’ advocates of social primitivism having helped savage DDT, this may have been feasible if not desirable.

The United States is execrated for its putative 'stinginess’ for not quickly enough implementing the ingenuity which is the handmaiden of the specific cognitive methodology damned by these deservedly impotent savages’ beliefs.

What of the vacationing Europeans? Who cares? Their idyllic sabbaticals were made possible by a predatory economic system whose ruling parasites conspire to devour the Capitalist abundance of America so they might extend their collectivist profligacy to festering 'nations’.

Displaying more nerve than a brass-ass monkey, western Europeans arrogantly ignore America’s own sovereignty by risibly demanding they pay more taxes. For what? So the United States might kill themselves. After all, Indonesian Islam glorifies self-immolation, as the incendiary Buddhists in 1960’s Viet Nam did, as well as those imprudently lionised Hindu fakirs. Who does this America think she is to evade ineluctable suffering? Osama’s gonna teach her a lesson!

The Bush administration, particularly in the Moslem Indonesian and Malaysian contexts, if they wish to maintain their ‘faith-based’ integrity, must take full military and economic advantage of this 'act of god’.

drdriveby.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

  Displaying more nerve than a brass-ass monkey, western Europeans arrogantly ignore America’s own sovereignty by risibly demanding they pay more taxes.  For what? 

[...]

drdriveby.com

So they can bloat the UN coffers to funnel more money into the hands of their fellow dictators like Saddam, thereby keeping them in power and perpetuating the Hell in which their people live (for which they then blame America). After all, the US provides 25% of all UN funds--25%, for a country that is only ONE of HUNDREDS that make up the UN.

We're not even talking about private charitable donations Americans make at home and all over the world--which is a hell of a lot of more per capita than those Western Europeans who call Americans "stingy". :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, Thank you!

It is difficult for me to find somone who abstracts on the second or third or fourth level and expresses this linguistically.

Thank you for doing so.

I try to repesent the face without fear, pain, or, guilt.

Be that is may, the United States, and its citizens, are not obligated to give anyone aid anywhere.

If the United States government wants to provide "aid" to the impoverished areas then they ("it") can provide state-of-the-art weather satellite technology for a fee.

And, just while it comes to mind, the United Nations should be bulldozed into the sea and everything international should be addressed to the chief executive of the United States of America.

I have spoken to my Senators and Congressmen here in Oklahoma and know that this will not happen.

Etc., Etc., Etc., Thank you for your post.

---Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, Thank you!

It is difficult for me to find somone who abstracts on the second or third or fourth level and expresses this linguistically.

Thank you for doing so.

I try to repesent the face without fear, pain, or, guilt.

Be that is may, the United States, and its citizens, are not obligated to give anyone  aid anywhere.

If the United States government wants to provide "aid" to the impoverished areas then they ("it") can provide state-of-the-art weather satellite technology for a fee.

And, just while it comes to mind, the United Nations should be bulldozed into the sea and everything international should be addressed to the chief executive of the United States of America.

I have spoken to  my Senators and Congressmen here in Oklahoma and know that this will not happen.

Etc., Etc., Etc., Thank you for your post.

---Dan

Thank you for this delightful response. We work very hard to disabuse 'world opinion'. And your reply welcomely includes things even we neglected to explicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any suggestion that America has a ‘moral obligation’ to assist third world pig sties in the wake of their tsunami ordeal is grotesquely appalling. 

Note the alacrity with which environmental kooks attack the West for its lack of 'compassion’ for not having donated the capital intensive technology which could have palliated this felicitous (yes, we mean it ) disaster.  America, scream these half-naked brutes, must spare them from pestilence.  If not for their stateside 'ecologically responsible’ advocates of social primitivism having helped savage DDT, this may have been feasible if not desirable.              

The United States is execrated for its putative 'stinginess’ for not quickly enough implementing the ingenuity which is the handmaiden of  the specific cognitive methodology damned by these deservedly impotent savages’ beliefs. 

What of the vacationing Europeans?  Who cares?  Their idyllic sabbaticals were made possible by a predatory economic system whose ruling parasites conspire to devour the Capitalist abundance of America so they might extend their collectivist profligacy to festering 'nations’.

  Displaying more nerve than a brass-ass monkey, western Europeans arrogantly ignore America’s own sovereignty by risibly demanding they pay more taxes.  For what?  So the United States might kill themselves.    After all, Indonesian Islam glorifies self-immolation, as the incendiary  Buddhists in 1960’s Viet Nam did,  as well as those imprudently lionised Hindu fakirs.  Who does this America think she is to evade ineluctable suffering?  Osama’s gonna teach her a lesson!

The Bush administration, particularly in the Moslem Indonesian and Malaysian contexts, if they wish to maintain their ‘faith-based’ integrity, must take full military and economic advantage of this 'act of god’.

drdriveby.com

Although I agree with your overall sentiment, I would hardly call such a disaster felicitous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indonesia is the enemy now?

Islam is the major enemy. Since Indonesia has a majority of Muslims, it certainly cannot be treated as an ally.

On CNN, they showed the thoughts of a viewer from Bangladesh (Since Bangladesh is heavily Muslim, it is reasonable to assume that the viewer would also be most likely a Muslim). Here is how they ran

It is absurd to call the Iraqi rebels insurgents or terrorists. They are freedom fighters fighting foreign domination of their land. And if they didn't have the support of the majority of the Iraqi people, how could they stand against the mighty US Military

This is the predominant sentiment among the Muslims.

Therefore no person who is a Muslim at heart can be considered as an ally and should be considered as an enemy or a potential enemy.

BTW, I read about a poll conducted in Pakistan on whether they considered what Bin Laden was doing as wrong or right. Approx. 40 - 60% said that what Bin Laden was doing was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the alacrity with which environmental kooks attack the West for its lack of 'compassion’ for not having donated the capital intensive technology which could have palliated this felicitous (yes, we mean it ) disaster.  America, scream these half-naked brutes, must spare them from pestilence.

Your comments raise several questions:

(1) Why do you consider the tsunamis to be felicitous -- that is, appropriate to the occasion, which here is the death of thousands of people, including -- among others -- children, tourists from more advanced countries, and indigenous, rational adults who have applied for immigration to better lands?

(2) When you say "we," to whom are you referring? Multiple personalities? Imitation of the kings of Europe, kings who used the royal "we"? Do you have an aversion to the egoistic "I"?

(3) Do you believe that half-nakedness -- or even nakedness -- is morally wrong?

(4) Do you believe that all the individuals who live in such cultures are brutes? If so, what is your evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merged two similar topics on the Tsumani issue.

Also, for you guys quoting whole posts above you and then posting a one liner, abbreviate the quoted material (if it's even needed at all). There is no need to quote the WHOLE post. I suspect some folks are just hitting the reply button and without consideration for the forum guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is fair to say Zoso did peg an emotion here.

He is paying attention to the news, which is sometimes hard to do and not develop an ulcer.

It is strange that there is so much coverage on how we need to help these people, given that Bush had quickly pledged a good amount of our tax money to do so.

We can be sure that even if there were no tax money lots of generous Americans would have sent money. But when it is an issue of our taxes, and after just having gone thru the "Season of Sharing", it is hard not to sympathize with a certain level of burnout on hearing about someone in need. Sometimes the way the media phrases these things is enough to make people start hating babies and puppies, to paraphrase a Rand quote.

BTW, isn't this just the eternal political pretzel? People see something on TV that makes them feel guilty and want the president to fix it. But when tax time comes around they get mad at the president because he taxes them instead of their neighbors or employer.

I will just add to BurgessLau's comment.  Why do you find this act particularly disconcerting?  The U.S. gives $2 billion a year to Egypt, several hundreds of millions to the Palestinian Authority, and who knows how many millions to corrupt African dictatorships.  Not to speak of the money spent on the bureaucracy at home.  Why whould this act, which is not the fault of the victims nor perpetuates the anti-capitalist mentality which the above do, be particularly offensive to you?  I find that quite heartless of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You started this thread by pointing to the fact that this particular instance of foreign aid pisses you off, implying it does so more than others.  Otherwise, why not start a thread about giving the Palestinians hundreds of millions of dollars a year?

Compared with most of the other expenditures of the U.S. government, I see nothing wrong with this one.

I have to concur with Zoso's thought process on this one.

Whatever aid America gives to these countries stricken by this disaster will invariably fall into the hands of those in power who double as looters. It has happened constantly in modern history in these countries. As a result, the infrastrucure there will eventually be restored to such a state where everyday survival is possible, quite lower than the standard of living we enjoy here.

What has to be considered is why it is that every time America is hit by such disasters the loss of human life, while significant, is nowhere near as staggering as it is in these third world countries. Remember, America just went through four destructive hurricanes, and the total loss of life doesn't even approach that of the tsunamis. Also, the Phillipines went through a catastrophic loss of life from a typhoon that was no more destructive in its might than any of the hurricanes Florida suffered last season.

Many of America's buildings are constructed according to stringent codes and standards, which provide for such things as wind resistance, resistance of glazed areas to airborne objects, proper foundation loading, and seismic resistance in the foundation systems. Such standards are available abroad but are seldom implemented. Even if the government does not implement building codes, then, perhaps, those who finance, insure, and own such facilities shoud demand that these structures be built according to such building codes and standards, as a condition of financing and insurability (loss/risk prevention).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to concur with Zoso's thought process on this one.

Whatever aid America gives to these countries stricken by this disaster will invariably fall into the hands of those in power who double as looters.  It has happened constantly in modern history in these countries.  As a result, the infrastrucure there will eventually be restored to such a state where everyday survival is possible, quite lower than the standard of living we enjoy here.

What has to be considered is why it is that every time America is hit by such disasters the loss of human life, while significant, is nowhere near as staggering as it is in these third world countries.  Remember, America just went through four destructive hurricanes, and the total loss of life doesn't even approach that of the tsunamis.  Also, the Phillipines went through a catastrophic loss of life from a typhoon that was no more destructive in its might than any of the hurricanes Florida suffered last season.

Many of America's buildings are constructed according to stringent codes and standards, which provide for such things as wind resistance, resistance of glazed areas to airborne objects, proper foundation loading, and seismic resistance in the foundation systems.  Such standards are available abroad but are seldom implemented.  Even if the government does not implement building codes, then, perhaps, those who finance, insure, and own such facilities shoud  demand that these structures be built according to such building codes and standards, as a condition of financing and insurability (loss/risk prevention).

You have to keep in mind that such buildings are far more costly. Complying with government regulations costs hundreds of billions of dollars per year; the only reason it doesn't instantly destroy the US economy (along with many other highly regulated EU economies) is that we are rich enough to afford such high costs without major deprivation (relatively speaking). The case is radically different in impoverished countries like Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia, where wealth is scarce and must be used to meet the most pressing needs--among the least of which are strong buildings because that area of the world is rarely hit but such natural disasters.

Tenancy would cost too high for most people there, whose income are far too low to afford such high-standard housing. The only way these people can radically increase their ability to deal with such natural disasters is to industrialize, and thereby accumulate the capital needed to implement high-tech instruments to detect imminent natural disasters, build high-standard buildings and infrastructure to withstand them, and establish efficient emergency-relief response systems to deal with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...