1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWhere does the U.N. Secretary-General claim that U.N. aid programmes and U.N. member aid to developing countries is "charity" or that it is "considered charity"? Charities are charities, almost always private sector or non-governmental organisations.
The membership 'costs' to the UN can never be considered charity, charity can only ever be voluntary. So while the bureaurats may decide how much (if any) goes where, that can never be called charity.
Governmental aid programmes are not "charity" and they don't claim to be. They are bi-lateral and multi-lateral international relationships and agreements that almost always have - to a degree - the donor countries' interests in mind in some way.
You may choose to refer to U.N. aid programmes and U.N. member aid to developing countries as "charity" - and then run your sword through its strawman torso - or you may seek to obfuscate the issue by Wajoma-izing the meaning or usage of this common word and widely understood concept and smudge the distinctions - as is your wont on most threads you participate in - but it doesn't chage the nature of things on the ground and the nature and purpose of international interrelationships.
Having said that, you say "The membership 'costs' to the UN can never be considered charity[...]", and although it's not exactly what you intended with the sly little strawman you have paratrooped into this, I have to say I agree with these words.
Any time the government takes money from one person and gives it to another, it is charity. It is the worst kind of charity, it is extortion charity. It is a misuse of the power of government.
Too many people duped in the US to turn it around, although I think we are less far gone than most countries.
Originally posted by EladarNo it is not. You are either mistaken about the meaning of "charity" or you are using the word incorrectly because you want to crowbar it into an ideological point you want to make.
Any time the government takes money from one person and gives it to another, it is charity.
If you oppose bi-lateral or multi-lateral aid programmes - or even other kinds of international agreements and cooperation - then do so honestly and with self-confidence, and not with this furtive redefinition of words - falsely saying "it is charity" and "it is the worst kind of charity" and the oxymoronic "it is extortion charity".
Charity is charity. International development aid is international development aid. The distinction between the motivation, purpose and outcomes of these two things cannot be wished away with wishy washy wordplay.
Originally posted by FMFThere is nothing wrong with international cooperation, but charities should be left to charities, not governments. When governments run charities, they aren't charities at all, they are extortion rackets.
International cooperation and aid agreements are a misuse of power by the governments of autonomous nations?
Originally posted by EladarCharities are "left to charities", Eladar.
There is nothing wrong with international cooperation, but charities should be left to charities, not governments.
Charities are charities. International development aid is international development aid.
Charity is not intergovernmental development aid.
International development aid is not charity.
You seem to be trying to obliterate clear - and significant - distinctions with deliberate misuse of words.
Originally posted by EladarIf helping the poorest of the poor is being a 'nanny state' then the US is already a nanny state and has been for a long time, or don't you have social services over there? And why are you not supposed to be a nanny state? Surely everyone support at least the basic social services?
We are not only supposed to have a Nanny State for a country, but we are to play Nanny State to the world?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know we are already a nanny state. It has led to much suffering and much fraud.
If helping the poorest of the poor is being a 'nanny state' then the US is already a nanny state and has been for a long time, or don't you have social services over there? And why are you not supposed to be a nanny state? Surely everyone support at least the basic social services?
On the international level it would be even worse. No, I do not believe the government should be in the charity business even within the country. Somehow we survived many years without it and the problems we had before we still have today.
Originally posted by EladarEladar, you probably need to look into this issue if you're going to 'debate' it with people. No U.S. development aid money is spent on anything remotely like a 'welfare state' or a 'nanny state'. None of it is used as 'handouts' or 'unemployment benefits' anything of the kind.
I know we are already a nanny state. It has led to much suffering and much fraud. On the international level it would be even worse.
It's becoming clear that you don't really know what development aid is, and what kind of coopreation and projects it underwrites, and what the benefits are for all parties. And you keep referring to it as "charity" and now you seem to be suggesting it creates some kind of 'nanny state' overseas too.
You clearly know little about 'development aid.... which makes your strident opposition to it sound fumbling and uninformed. And it makes your claim that you "...started the thread so that more Americans can know what is going on" seem rather far fetched.
Eladar, you probably need to look into this issue if you're going to 'debate' it with people. No U.S. development aid money is spent on anything remotely like a 'welfare state' or a 'nanny state'. None of it is used as 'handouts' or 'unemployment benefits' anything of the kind.
I never said it did. I just said the US government should not be handing out money to people in the form of charity.
Originally posted by EladarWell it seemd pretty clear that you did mean that. Reading your exchange with twhitehead is what prompted my comment. Perhaps you are talking about humanitarian aid - like disaster relief. Or are you talking about development aid? It would be a tad strange if it turns out you think that the U.N. Secretary-General was referring to humanitarian aid in the OP.
I never said it did. I just said the US government should not be handing out money to people in the form of charity.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI am very surprised at which characters here are exposing themselves as dyed-in-the-wool evangelical Christians, extolling the virtue of "You are your brothers keeper." Seems to be the opposite of prior claims of total disdain for religion by the same individuals.
[b]UNITED NATIONS, Sept 20 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pressed debt-ridden donor countries on Monday not to cut aid to the poor despite their budgetary woes.
"We should not balance budgets on the backs of the poor," Ban told 140 leaders at the start of a three-day summit to review progress in meeting U.N. poverty goals by 2015.
...[text shortened]... le more than world wide communism.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20266544.htm[/b]
Originally posted by MacSwainAs I said, the government is not the solution. I did not say we should not have charity. I just said that we should not have extortion. Government charity leads to many evils.
I am very surprised at which characters here are exposing themselves as dyed-in-the-wool evangelical Christians, extolling the virtue of "You are your brothers keeper." Seems to be the opposite of prior claims of the same individuals.