Aid for the poor?

[Tankkiller]

"Amongst other organisations the United Nations try to raise money for the poor in this world, year after year. In the last three months, governments around the world were ready to spend thousands of billions of dollars for ailing financial institutes. With a small percentage of that amount, hunger could be wiped off the face of this eart. Why has the fight against hunger never received sufficient funding and probably never will?"

That's the topic on what I should write on.
But more interesting is, what are you guys thinking of that?


Note: This is my first post in this forum, don't be too rude please.

Tankkiller

[Chukada1]

Because Somalian coast guards protect the masses from capitalism.

[Justice and Mercy]

They shouldn't recieve that funding.

Taxpayer money shouldn't be used to feed foreigners (or even citizens).

The proper duty of the government is to protect people's freedom from other people, nothing more.

If the taxpayers want to feed Africans they can do it willingly, if they don't want to the government certainly isn't right in forcing them to.

[Chukada1]

Mabye if we started sending them food instead of money. Mabye, just mabye, the warlords won't use it to buy guns.

[hellheaven1987]

Mabye if we started sending them food instead of money. Mabye, just mabye, the warlords won't use it to buy guns.

I lol when I saw this.

Most people probably do not know that a lot of food is directly going to warlords' pocket... to feed their men obviously.

[Chukada1]

I lol when I saw this.

Most people probably do not know that a lot of food is directly going to warlords' pocket... to feed their men obviously.

Mabye if we started sending guns instead of food, the warlords mabye, just mabye, won't use it to buy more guns.

[hellheaven1987]

Mabye if we started sending guns instead of food, the warlords mabye, just mabye, won't use it to buy more guns.

Well, you probably don't get my meaning.

The fact is that it is also difficult for those warlord finding enough food to feed his men; an army can use mache to terrorize people, but cannot move if there is no enough food.

[Strattios]

They shouldn't recieve that funding.

Taxpayer money shouldn't be used to feed foreigners (or even citizens).

The proper duty of the government is to protect people's freedom from other people, nothing more.

If the taxpayers want to feed Africans they can do it willingly, if they don't want to the government certainly isn't right in forcing them to.

I agree whole heartedly. And then there is the real catch of giving handouts, people get used to it and you must for ever give them food. Then what? You just caused your tax payers a never ending debt that in no way helps your nation. And it's not like you can just stop the aid or else everyone will criticize you.

[Vladimir Lenin]

They shouldn't recieve that funding.

Taxpayer money shouldn't be used to feed foreigners (or even citizens).

The proper duty of the government is to protect people's freedom from other people, nothing more.

If the taxpayers want to feed Africans they can do it willingly, if they don't want to the government certainly isn't right in forcing them to.

Agreed, but the UN can do whatever it wants.

[Justice and Mercy]

Agreed, but the UN can do whatever it wants.

How do you think the UN is funded?

Guess: You are a Republican (or at least a conservative).

No and yes.

Based on your reasoning, however, people who don't believe in the use of violence or disagree with specific wars shouldn't be forced to pay taxes to fund these wars.

Nope. The military is a proper function of government.

Whether or not a particular war is proper is often up for debate.

I guess that you do not. You, or someone like you, would likely say that national defense is a responsibility of the government and that anyone who does not want to support this cause monetarily is not a responsible or even worthy member of the nation in question.

I would say they're not fulfilling their moral obligation.

No true libertarian claims that taxes shouldn't be levied.

[Yorkshireman]

I would say they're not fulfilling their moral obligation.

So your morally obligated to fund a war thousands of miles away from your shores, but not to feed your fellow citizens?

What would you have done with the people of New Orleons after the floods, let them starve?

[Justice and Mercy]

So your morally obligated to fund a war thousands of miles away from your shores, but not to feed your fellow citizens?

Assuming it's a proper war, yes.

Now, if the nation is stuck in an improper war that's the fault of the taxpayers for not keeping an eye on the government, and now they're stuck paying the bill.

Nothing can be done about that.

What would you have done with the people of New Orleons after the floods, let them starve?

Me?

Yeah. I didn't care.

You on the other hand care, right? You can donate.

[Hardrada992]

Ok well you seem to have ignored or left out a few main points of my argument.

Nope. The military is a proper function of government.

Whether or not a particular war is proper is often up for debate.

I clearly stated that I also believe that maintaining an effective military is important. And I also made a similar statement about the legitimacy of war, which can often be called into question. However, how can you really call into question the legitimacy of feeding a hungry person? If your neighbor was starving to death would you let him die?

I would say they're not fulfilling their moral obligation.

No true libertarian claims that taxes shouldn't be levied.

I never said they shouldn't or that you thought they shouldn't. My main point here was that the government has a responsibility to fund several different programs such as the military and programs that feed people who can't feed themselves. Just because some people are against certain programs doesn't mean the government should not fund them, as it has a responsibility to the whole of it's people.

[Vladimir Lenin]

How do you think the UN is funded?

Voluntary donations from it's member states. Once again, Government Welfare and Aid is bad. I only said the UN can do what it wants is because, well the UN can do whatever it wants. No one can stop it.

[Justice and Mercy]

Voluntary donations from it's member states.

Which is really taxpayer money.

No one can stop it.

I see your point, don't agree though. It's practically a defunct and far-too-costly ("far-too-costly" meaning "anything more than nothing") whining contest.

[Alkarin]

, well the UN can do whatever it wants. No one can stop it.

too bad the UN doesnt do anything but say in a whiney voice 'noooo you can't do thaaat' and all the real countries in this world laugh at them. all the UN does is cry and send money to militant groups thinking they are helping the poor because they are idiots.

[Hardrada992]

They shouldn't recieve that funding.

Taxpayer money shouldn't be used to feed foreigners (or even citizens).

The proper duty of the government is to protect people's freedom from other people, nothing more.

If the taxpayers want to feed Africans they can do it willingly, if they don't want to the government certainly isn't right in forcing them to.

Firstly:
I'm going to make a guess and then an assumption here... let me know if I hit or miss.

Guess: You are a Republican (or at least a conservative). Your opinion seems as though it is in line with a common ideal of conservatives or Republicans: that government shouldn't use tax revenue to fund things like medical care/welfare etc.
I assume, if I am correct, that you (in saying that the government should only protect the freedom of it's people against others) that you support the use of tax revenue to fund things like National Defense. If this is true than you would likely support funding for a war that was fought to defend your country or it's values. Based on your reasoning, however, people who don't believe in the use of violence or disagree with specific wars shouldn't be forced to pay taxes to fund these wars. The people who support the war should fund it themselves, and the government shouldn't force anyone to do likewise.

Do you agree?

I guess that you do not. You, or someone like you, would likely say that national defense is a responsibility of the government and that anyone who does not want to support this cause monetarily is not a responsible or even worthy member of the nation in question.

Here I would agree with you. There are certain responsibilities that a government must act upon for it to be legitimate, and one of these is maintaining an effective military.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(I speak from a theoretical standpoint, I personally do not support the current war in Iraq, however, I would have been in full support of the Second World War if I had been alive. The point here is that it takes more than the say-so of those in power to make a war legitimate)

This is also where I disagree with you, completely. The most important responsibility of a government is to protect the welfare of it's citizens. Protecting individual freedom is a very important aspect of this, but protecting the physical and mental well being is just as if not more important. This includes feeding them. And if a country is well enough off I believe that it should also attempt to help its neighbors. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

Secondly:
Clearly, money is needed to "end world hunger." However, as others have said, it is not the solution in and of itself. Based on my experience working at the Drop-in Center in my town I believe that the answer lies in the community. Members of a community know what works and what doesn't. Dropping crates of food into an impoverished area won't fix anything. Some people will eat for a while, but as others have said, it is not a long term solution. More attention needs to be paid to localized, individual solutions. Each community needs to take responsibility for the welfare of it's own, but in doing so they do need money and in many cases this money has to be gotten elsewhere.

Give a man an apple, he eats for a day
Teach a community to build a sustainable orchard and it will eat for...longer.

[Viking Prince]

...

A great deal is wrong with you perception of Republicanism and conservatism in general. First and foremost -- the focus is on individual liberty and individual responsibility. Taxes are neither optional nor should they be used to do good. Taxes should be raised to perform the necessary duties of government. Too often, government programs crowd out more versatile private organizations. Private charity is usually more effective dollar for dollar but cannot compete with the coercive nature of government. The first solution should not be reaching for the government.

Countries giving charity to countries is definitely not a conservative concept. Americans tend to give a great deal to feeding people overseas as well as at home. To suggest that this is better done with private charity is not to be hard-hearted or non-caring.

I might add that this is a good time of the year to check out what your local food bank can use for donations. The shelves may appear full, but there is typically only a few weeks worth on hand at any moment.

You may also notice bell ringers with Salvation Army collection kettles. Putting in a few bucks is giving to a worthwhile effort.

[Hardrada992]

A great deal is wrong with you perception of Republicanism and conservatism in general. First and foremost -- the focus is on individual liberty and individual responsibility. Taxes are neither optional nor should they be used to do good. Taxes should be raised to perform the necessary duties of government....

...Countries giving charity to countries is definitely not a conservative concept. Americans tend to give a great deal to feeding people overseas as well as at home. To suggest that this is better done with private charity is not to be hard-hearted or non-caring.

You missed my point. I don't quite see what you mean in saying that my perception of conservatism is wrong. My point was based on the fact that, as you said, conservatives believe that taxes should only be used to perform the necessary duties of government. I brought that up to illustrate where I disagreed with the idea that it is not the responsibility of the government to provide monetary aid to it's citizens, a responsibility which I believe is a necessary duty of the government.

I certainly never said anything about conservatives supporting international charity, or that the idea that supporting private charity over government funded programs was cold hearted.

What is cold hearted, however, is the belief that the poor should be left to fend for themselves, or statements like "I don't care about the people in New Orleans."

It's hard for me to understand the general idea that conservatives have when it comes to individual responsibility. On one hand, of course people need to take responsibility for their own welfare and should not depend on handouts, but there are people who need extra help, and I believe this help should come from the government if it can't be found anywhere else.

[Viking Prince]

You missed my point. I don't quite see what you mean in saying that my perception of conservatism is wrong. My point was based on the fact that, as you said, conservatives believe that taxes should only be used to perform the necessary duties of government. I brought that up to illustrate where I disagreed with the idea that it is not the responsibility of the government to provide monetary aid to it's citizens, a responsibility which I believe is a necessary duty of the government.

I certainly never said anything about conservatives supporting international charity, or that the idea that supporting private charity over government funded programs was cold hearted.

What is cold hearted, however, is the belief that the poor should be left to fend for themselves, or statements like "I don't care about the people in New Orleans."

It's hard for me to understand the general idea that conservatives have when it comes to individual responsibility. On one hand, of course people need to take responsibility for their own welfare and should not depend on handouts, but there are people who need extra help, and I believe this help should come from the government if it can't be found anywhere else.

Sorry if I seemed to overreact -- still a bit grumpy from the election.

People saying statements as you suggested regarding New Orleans are not representative of any political philosophy that we are discussing.

Personal responsibility does not mean making people to fend for themselves. It does mean that my contributions to charity are my responsibility though. If I choose to take such responsibility or not is still between me and my maker. No need to place coercive government into the process.

To suggest that the government should do anything because help cannot be found elsewhere is simply giving cover to those who want the government to help. Those in need can indeed be helped and the help need never be based on the government. As I had noted, the government programs tend to crowd out private charity. Looking at the lack of private charity to justify existing government intervention is simply overlooking the crowd out effect.

If you are personally concerned, I would strongly recommend that you take personal action and not wait for a government to act.