Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

Rate this topic


Zoso

Recommended Posts

Right now America is that father...But short of the kid holding a gun to your head, and indonesia certainly isnt, you dont leave the kid to die when it gets hit down in the street by a car.

First of all, America is not the big daddy of the world. America didn't give birth to or create any of the countries of the world.

Secondly, Indonesia is not a silly innocent child. Anti-Americanism is rabid over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A father gets shouted out and abused by his 13 yr old teenage son - the son might even hit him - the father doesnt throw him out on the streets for life, ...(snip)...

Right now America is that father -

This analogy falls apart on at least one level, if not more. A father chooses to become a father and by virtue of that fact, he chooses an obligation to his off-spring. The objection expressed by several people in this board is not necessarily that the Indonesians shouldn't be helped, it's the manner in which there are efforts to place an unchoosen obligation on the US. The US did not choose to have Indonesia in the sense that a father chooses to have a child.

If you try to impose some obligation of altruism on others on this forum, it isn't going to work.

I know thats tenous, but frankly some of the response here disgust me - some people here are all to ready to put forth selfishness without really considering what makes them who they are.

Yes, your argument is tenuous. Your disgust is your problem, but you are making a generalized attack about "some people" here that you should either specifically support or retract. Who, specifically, is being selfish without considering who they are, and what facts do you have to support that so that they have an chance to rebut your claim?

Also, it appears you are using selfish as though it's a bad word. Is this the case? If so, are you forgetting you are on a forum about Objectivism?

Moderator Mode [On]: This is the second time in this thread that I have had to mention to someone that making generalized attacks is not acceptable. If you have an accusation about a specific user that you can back up with facts, do it. This affords a fair opportunity for whoever is being accused to address those charges. There are no "free shots" on this forum. This will suffice as a caution to anyone who chooses this tactic again in which case I will make my warning more formal. Moderator Mode [Off]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but I believe this stands;

----

Your running out of a burning building - you see a young child in a cot - it has no demand over your will, no absolute right to survival - but you still pick it up and carry it out of the flames.

You don't help millions of people, whole countries, that have been devastated by a natural disaster because you have to, or because they 'need' you.

You help millions of individuals, whole countries, that have been devastated by a natural disaster because you a basic empathy with human life and human potential.

------

As for my tenuous analogy I understand the kid-father thing is dubious - i got a little carried away.

My disgust, and yes of course it is my disgust, is that Zoso so eagerly (the very day it happened) denounces aid without any consideration or respect for the 150,000 dead, and the millions of others affected. As to the form of aid, the degree of aid and the question of whether we should help a dire and threatening enemy in such circumstances im open to ideas. Indonesia is not a dire and threatening enemy - anti-americanism is one thing but thats quite another.

I should be interested to hear what the aforementioned and others think of the massive corporate response to the Tsunami disasters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote

Indonesia is not a dire and threatening enemy - anti-americanism is one thing but thats quite another.

I should be interested to hear what the aforementioned and others think of the massive corporate response to the Tsunami disasters.

[

Indonesia is most certainly a 'dire' threat to America just as any other malodourous Moslem vipers' nest. If any misguided corporation undertakes to heal the enemy's wounds instead of exploiting them-that's their funeral. You, like these charitable-no, suicidal-businessmen seem to be unaware that altruism is the root of all civilisational evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to remind everybody that it is Altruism that is responsible for the hardening of hearts. By forcing people to participate against their will in charity (or even by implying that there exist categorical duties), it saps all genuine brotherhood and charity. I believe Ayn Rand wrote on this topic once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but I believe this stands;

----

(snip)

You help millions of individuals, whole countries, that have been devastated by a natural disaster because you a basic empathy with human life and human potential.

------

What "stands" about this is that you are expressing your values in such a manner that everybody else should adopt them. Or in other words, you are imposing your values on other people by telling them what you think they should do.

If you take a look around, you will see a multitude of situations where people are in need, here in our backyard and abroad. There is plenty of devastation around, you are only looking at one instance because geographically there was a whole bunch of people "in need" all at once. If one were to adopt your position, one would run out of resources trying to do what you feel they should do. What rational people do is establish a priority on what they are willing to give to those "in need" based on their values and self-interest.

So for the purpose of illustrating what I mean, I will pose this to you.

Millions of people are victims of crime every year.

People should be police officers because victims of crime need our help. Being a police officer represents many important values in my life, so I think you should be a police officer.

Are you a police officer Charles? If not now, when are you going to join up and help out? People need your help in this area; children, old folks, working folks, they all need your help.

Do you see my point?

If you want to express why you think this particular need reflects your values and self-interest, have at it. If you want to tell others why they should react the same way, your barking up the wrong forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying everyone should help the victims of a particular natural disaster. I am defended the US's decision to give aid to them. I understand that this is tax payers money and that complicates matters, which is why I mentioned how big the corporate response has been.

Besides which - I dont think its unreasonable to expect other people to preface their vulgar whinging about aid (Zoso's 1st post) on the day of such a disaster with a little temperance.

People have been dressed down on this forum for a lot less crude comments concerning 911 where around 3000 died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying everyone should help the victims of a particular natural disaster. I am defended the US's decision to give aid to them. I understand that this is tax payers money and that complicates matters, which is why I mentioned how big the corporate response has been.

The money is not the government's to give in the first place. It was taken from the pockets of American citizens without their consent. If a corporation or an individual wants to help with the tsunami relief, that is the corporation's or individual's choice and I would not stand in the way of it. However, a government does not have the right to take its citizens money, much less spend it on other countries.

Besides which - I dont think its unreasonable to expect other people to preface their vulgar whinging about aid (Zoso's 1st post) on the day of such a disaster with a little temperance.

People have been dressed down on this forum for a lot less crude comments concerning 911 where around 3000 died.

Do you not understand the difference between the tsunami and 9/11? 9/11 was a direct attack on Capitalism and the American way of life by a group of people who wish to revert their citizens back to primitive status. The tsunami was a natural disaster made worse by non-Capitalistic countries who were ill prepared for it. If you don't understand the difference, I highly recommend you read David Holcberg's article "US Government Should Not Help Tsunami Victims" and Yaron Brook's tape series on terrorism, available from the ARI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying everyone should help the victims of a particular natural disaster.

No, just everyone who pays taxes.

I am defended the US's decision to give aid to them.
You sounded less like you were defending the US's decision to give aid, and more like you were establishing an obligation on the part of the US to give aid. If you had been defending the US's policy, I would have expected to see reasons and facts, not tenuous analogies laden with emotion. I've noticed that mentioned the numbers in each of these situations, 9/11 vs. the Tsunami (3,000 and 150,000). So that I understand, in what context do you think these numbers (themselves) have significance?

I dont think its unreasonable to expect other people to preface their vulgar whinging about aid (Zoso's 1st post) on the day of such a disaster with a little temperance.

I don't think it is unreasonable to be specific in what you are asking or stating. If this was your concern, then from your first post in the thread you should have asked him to preface or clarify his comment, and you should have explained why you thought his comment was a "vulgar whining", something which you still haven't established. Instead, you obfuscated the issue by making a general comments about "people" whose identity could not be determined. "Some people" implied more than one person, yet you later stated it was just Zoso.

People have been dressed down on this forum for a lot less crude comments concerning 911 where around 3000 died.
I second what Redfarmer said. It would appear you do not grasp the contexts in these situations very well.

From your next post:

I can see where your coming from; the illegitimacy of tax etc, but as far as government misspending goes, and how distant the prospect of changing it is, im not to bothered in this instance.

I smell subjectivism here. The government can misspend other people's money so long as they are doing it in a manner that you value. And your last sentence is disingenuous. It's not that you are "not too bothered", it's that you actively support the expenditure of tax payer money, and that you feel the US is obligated in some way to give aid.

PS: Each word that I italicized is a word that you misspelled. Please take the time to proofread your post before hitting the submit button. Typos are one thing, but frequent misspelling is a violation of forum rules. There are a number of online resources easily available to help you with spelling if that is what you need.

One is, Dictionary.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I did not mean whining; I meant whinging - phonetically win-gin-g.

Though yes, you are right - I did use the wrong tense of the verb 'to defend'.

I really must take more care in future Vern.

---

As for my previous comments and tenuous analogy, I realise I have explained myself badly - I should have made my point about Zoso's post before trying to address the issue.

My views are not clear on the issue - it is obviously a question of weighing up human life and individual sovereignty - on a massive scale in each case. I should have given it more thought before commenting.

---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where your coming from; the illegitimacy of tax etc, but as far as government misspending goes, and how distant the prospect of changing it is, im not to bothered in this instance.

The problem with the above statement is that you are treating a CRITICALLY IMPORTANT fact (that the Tsunami relief comes from tax money) as if it were an inessential one.

It is of the utmost importance that the government is FORCING millions of people to send their money away to perfect strangers who may indeed be militant Islamists.

But even if they are genuine victims, I don't owe them a second of my life, nor the money that it takes my time to earn. A need is not a claim on my life, and need is the only claim these people are making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If but one Objectivist's life is saved or made easier by the tsunami relief effort, it garners my full support.

This sounds almost like you're using the old Balkanization arguement (if you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, I suggest you read the essay "Global Balkanization" from The Voice of Reason). What if you substituted the word Objectivist for another group of people? "If only one male were saved, it garners my full support." It sounds rediculous in this context. How does it sound any more plausible when talking about an Objectivist? You're setting up a straw man.

If you know of an Objectivist (or anyone else you value for that matter) who was caught in the tsunami disaster and YOU want to help that person, that is your perogative. You have the right to spend your money on whatever you want. However, the United States does not have the right to spend money that was not given to it by the people willingly to begin with.

And to anyone else the aid benefits, it serves as my belief in his/her potential value as a member of the human race.

It's hard to take this statement seriously at all. By your reasoning, if Osama bin Laden or Sadaam Hussein were caught in the tsunami and were benefited by the relief effort, it would be moral because of their "potentential" as a member of the human race. Please put away your altruism and look at the real issue: the fact that the United States is using money it stole from its own citizens without their consent for this relief effort. I certainly wasn't asked if the money which is taken out of my paycheck every week could be sent to a third world country to help someone I've never heard of. I would have said no, I need that money to go to college!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please notice I said it garners MY full support, not the United States of America.

The US Government has two moral obligations on which it should spend its tax revenue:

Defending itself from all other foreign nations.

Defending each citizen from every other citizen.

If Tsunami relief efforts can be proved to fit into one of those categories, so be it; otherwise, I would like my tax dollars back, just as you would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please notice I said it garners MY full support, not the United States of America.

The US Government has two moral obligations on which it should spend its tax revenue:

Defending itself from all other foreign nations.

Defending each citizen from every other citizen.

If Tsunami relief efforts can be proved to fit into one of those categories, so be it; otherwise, I would like my tax dollars back, just as you would.

Your post doesn't make any sense. You're trying to say you support the relief effort while at the same time trying to distance yourself from what the relief effort is. While many corporations and individuals are donating to the relief effort (I would venture to say most of them are doing so on false premises), the vast majority of the relief effort is being provided by tax dollars. Without the United States's and other countries' support, the relief effort wouldn't even get off the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine Delta is referring to, and commending, the huge private relief effort.

--------------------

There is one power that the British government is now implementing and that is the freezing and eventual cancellation of debt for affected countries, as well as a larger debt cancellation program for third world countries.

Those are two levels of debt cancellation and might be addressed independently, I may start a new topic on it if people are interested.

There are some spurious arguments made that developed nations, particularly Britain, owes its ex-colonies large sums of money for goods removed, slavery etc.

I refute this; but our empire building did knock out a crucial stage in development (though it can be argued it would have never happened) in, particularly, our African colonies. That they were subjugated to British imperialism cost them their national identity and developing societal structures. The consequent attempts to create independant states have been marred with chaos.

Perhap then, for those third world nations not a threat to national security, a program of debt relief for democracy is a possible way forward? A way out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to anyone else the aid benefits, it serves as my belief in his/her potential value as a member of the human race.

Aside from what has already been pointed out to be wrong with this sentence:

If you're so keen on sending your money away to victimized Objectivists, I have had my money stolen by the US government, so I am both a victim and an Objectivist. Send your money to [email protected]. This is a higher value than money to strangers, since I am less of a stranger, and unlike Tsunami victims, you KNOW I am not a terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine Delta is referring to, and commending, the huge private relief effort.

--------------------

If that's what he's referring to, he needs to say it. As it is, he's only said he is for the "relief effort."

There is one power that the British government is now implementing and that is the freezing and eventual cancellation of debt for affected countries, as well as a larger debt cancellation program for third world countries.

Those are two levels of debt cancellation and might be addressed independently, I may start a new topic on it if people are interested.

There are some spurious arguments made that developed nations, particularly Britain, owes its ex-colonies large sums of money for goods removed, slavery etc.

I refute this; but our empire building did knock out a crucial stage in development (though it can be argued it would have never happened) in, particularly, our African colonies. That they were subjugated to British imperialism cost them their national identity and developing societal structures. The consequent attempts to create independant states have been marred with chaos.

Perhap then, for those third world nations not a threat to national security,  a program of debt relief for democracy is a possible way forward? A way out?

All of this ignores the fact that the United States (and every other country for that matter) is not responsible for any other countries' welfare. Only an altruistic attitude would make one believe otherwise. Only when there is a clear stake for the United States should we intervene. Anything else is the same mentality as the Vietnam War.

And, I state this emphatically, helping the third world countries is not a "way out." First of all, democracy should NOT be a desired state. To quote Leonard Peikoff:

The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional repulbic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn't like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one's rights.

Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic gevernment is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom....

The only way for countries to find a way forward is to embrace Capitalism, the force which has shaped our country and many other countries around the world great. For examples, look at Japan and Hong Kong, two Asian countries which were considered "third world" before World War II. After World War II, both embraced Capitalism and now are among two of the most developed areas of Asia. Yet, other countries have not shown such progress. Why because they do not embrace Capitalism.

Do you really believe that the countries receiving debt cancellation will suddenly not be third world any more simply because of this? They are not going to change their ways just because they are offered debt cancellation, nor is this the most likely reason it is being offered to them in the first place. The reason debt relief is being offered to them is out of a sense of altruism.

Please, if you wish to donate to these people, do it and get it over with. Please don't come on here, though, and try to rationalize away the way my tax dollars are being spent. I have already been forced to "donate" to these people. I do not feel an obligation to give them anymore money.

(edited for spelling and clarity)

Edited by redfarmer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

refarmer: "All of this ignores the fact that the United States (and every other country for that matter) is not responsible for any other countries' welfare. Only an altruistic attitude would make one believe otherwise. Only when there is a clear stake for the United States should we intervene. Anything else is the same mentality as the Vietnam War."
What are your thoughts on the war in iraq?

---

As for your point on democracy - I agree with you, or Peikoff rather. The fact that one has a vote for a single party of two (three in UK) does not make a country a true democracy. A true democracy would be where every policy and decision of government would be made by the majority (presumably through some centralized computer voter system)

A constitutional republic, whilst by no means perfect, is the preferable system of government. As small of possible as course :nuke:

---

refarmer: "Do you really believe that the countries receiving debt cancellation will suddenly not be third world any more simply because of this? They are not going to change their ways just because they are offered debt cancellation, nor is this the most likely reason it is being offered to them in the first place. The reason debt relief is being offered to them is out of a sense of altruism."

-No - obviously change won't happen overnight in any circumstance

- What makes you so sure a country in 80% GDP debt is going to turn down debt relief in return for alternate sources of payment (agreement to treaties, constitutional and military reforms etc)?

- However, I agree with you that this does not seem to be the current motivation behind debt relief - it is altruism of sorts. (I'd suggest an undeveloped continent of violence, disease with access to weapons is not in any countries interests - but you can't just throw money at this problem)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts on the war in iraq?

This is not the proper thread to discuss the war in Iraq as this is a complex and controversial subject which has been discussed to death in other threads. I started a thread in May of last year on the subject here. Keep in mind when reading my comments that I was brand new to Objectivism and had not integrated the philosophy nearly as much as I have now. To summarize my beliefs on the subject now, though: we don't have concrete evidence that Bush was aware that the information on WMDs and al-Qaeda he had was incorrect. To try and analyze his motives for the war would be psychologizing. As I'm not his psychologist, I will not attempt to analyze his motives.

No - obviously change won't happen overnight in any circumstance

- What makes you so sure a country in 80% GDP debt is going to turn down debt relief in return for alternate sources of payment (agreement to treaties, constitutional and military reforms etc)?

Because the United States has a bad track record with countries it has tried to "help." If you would like examples, take a look at Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, pre-war Iraq, and Iran, only to name a few. The mistake in all of these cases was that the United States attempted to change the country without changing their underlying philosophy.

- However, I agree with you that this does not seem to be the current motivation behind debt relief - it is altruism of sorts. (I'd suggest an undeveloped continent of violence, disease with access to weapons is not in any countries interests - but you can't just throw money at this problem)

Then why are you trying to rationalize it? The only thing which will change these countries is a change in their fundamental philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These post cause my heart to palpitate. It saddens me so much to hear so many references to to words like "evil" "enemy" and the most discusting of all "felicitous disaster." Ayn Rand put it that nothing was more important to an individual than their own life and that should be understood. It implys that if you respect the need for you to watch out for yourself alone you would likewise understand that everybody elses life is as important to them as yours is to you. That then should translate into a great appreciation for life...everyones.

I am not making any suggestions about whether a truly capialist government should give aid to countries in need, but the feelings of hatred expressed by so many of you is apalling. I feel quite sure that if Ayn Rand, who spoke so often of the importance of life, were aware that these people were referencing her works she would be heart broken. It is so hard to see her philosophy that did so encompass personal integrity being quoted by what seems to be ignorant oafs. Thus ignoring all of the time and effort she put into discussing the importance of an individuals appreciation for life. Having a great respect for life in no ways falls under the veil of altruism.

To take just half of her philosophy I liken to those fundemental christians who reek havoc by holding fast to half of thier scriptures while ignoring the rest. Its the old story of how a little bit is knowledge is worse than none.

Suggesting that individuals of a country not deserve aid based on its govermental objectives, views, practices or its overall slumbering economy is an overwhelmingly clear sign that those who wrote such things don't understand the philosophy at all and have so turned it into another way to discriminate and hate. To propose that someone not "deserve" to live based on his or hers assumed beliefs is absurd. THE REAL QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PERFORM SUCH ACTS, NOT TO WHOM!

I thought I could come to this site to hear interchanges between intelligent people and get away from the banter of extremist liberals or fundemental republicans, I find myself more disheartened by the gross amount of UNintelligence here. This now seems a forum of so many "fanatical objectivists"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These post cause my heart to palpitate.  It saddens me so much to hear so many

I thought I could come to this site to hear interchanges between intelligent people and get away from the banter of extremist liberals or fundemental republicans,  I find myself more disheartened by the gross amount of UNintelligence here.  This now seems a forum of so many "fanatical objectivists"

If you stick around here long enough you will see there are vast differences among the individuals who post here, most of whom would describe themselves as Objectivists.

Some of us are focused on being the best people we can possibly be, on what is true, and on all the things there are to love and value in the world. Others are more interested in "fixing" or complaining about other people and they focus on what is wrong and rotten in the world.

We all have a choice as to what -- and to whom -- we will grant importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Betsy,

That was the first thread I read, I've been poking around and have found that thier are some people with really intresting and well thought out arguments not based on hate but objectivist ideals. I look forward to finding more of them. And of course not everyone in that thread was expressing such volitile thoughts, I think the people I was adressing know who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These post cause my heart to palpitate.  It saddens me so much to hear so many references to to words like "evil"  "enemy"  and the most discusting of all "felicitous disaster."  Ayn Rand put it that nothing was more important to an individual than their own life and that should be understood.  It implys that if you respect the need for you to watch out for yourself alone you would likewise understand that everybody elses life is as important to them as yours is to you.  That then should translate into a great appreciation for life...everyones....

First, please define the statements which would lead you to such a conclusion. Second, what do those statements have to do with the issue at hand, whether governments should give aid to the tsunami victims?

I have a great appreciation for life. However, I have a greater appreciation for my own life. Being that I will be struggling within the next few months to pay my way through college, I feel my money should be better spent on other things, namely me.

As I have previously said and will reiterate, individuals and corporations have every right in the world to donate relief money for the tsunami victims. I wouldn't dream of standing in their way. It's their money. It's their money to do with as they please. However, the government took the money they are sending to the tsunami victims by force through the income tax. Therefore, the government's action is immoral. That is the issue at hand. I'm surprised it's gone on this long.

I do welcome you to the forum, though. If you have anything to add or you see where I have been unclear in my wording in any way, please do let me know.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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