The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: fatcat on January 17, 2010, 12:32:56 PM

Title: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: fatcat on January 17, 2010, 12:32:56 PM
Haiti Police open fire on rioters/looters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7005853/Haiti-earthquake-police-open-fire-on-looters.html)

It will stop this kind of thing from happening.

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01560/policeman_1560626c.jpg)

Quote
It came as predictions of the death toll from the Haitian earthquake rose to 200,000 as mounting desperation at lack of aid threatens to tilt the country into anarchy.

With up to three million survivors still cut off from outside rescue efforts, the United Nations said the disaster was the worst it had ever dealt with.

Aid officials fear a lapse into all-out lawlessness in coming days unless US troops can get through with vital food, medicine and water deliveries, which are being hampered by the sheer scale of devastation. There were continued incidents of looting, and isolated reports of rescue workers being stoned by angry crowds.

Rioting is NOT good for stability, not good for economic growth, not good for property rights (which are already terrible in Haiti (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Haiti#property-rights)), and not good for a stable government, and a stable government is more likely to chance on market liberalization.

Take a look at Somalia if you think a break down in government is going to lead to freedom.

And before anyone leaps in and make some really dumb ass comments about Haitians being backwards for rioting, rioting is a fairly universal human response to bad conditions.

It might not be moral, productive or helpful, but its what people do when shit goes bad.

There was looting after Katrina, rioting in Greece last year, and they were nothing compared to this, so just because they're rioting doesn't mean Haitians any more helpless or incapable of economic prosperity than any other people, or that they've brought about their own shitty conditions.

Should Katrina people not have been helped since the areas hit were relatively poor and the people there were probably just lazy and didn't do enough to protect themselves?

Don't give them aid cause it will "enable" them (to do what? live?) is incredibly uncaring, and as far as i can see unfounded.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: libertylover on January 17, 2010, 04:56:58 PM
Voluntary aid to help people in a disaster area is a noble thing to do.  Giving money to poor people in good conditions via government instituted wealth distribution schemes is not.  Government welfare will not help and will only subsidize poverty thereby creating more of it. 

As for looters the property owners should have the right to defend their own property and not depend on government to protect it. 

If the owner is gone and people are starving, should it be okay to let people take food rather than let the food spoil?
When the blanket term like looting is used most tend to think of luxuries and not the fact that people may be taking necessities.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: fatcat on January 17, 2010, 07:13:42 PM
Voluntary aid to help people in a disaster area is a noble thing to do.  Giving money to poor people in good conditions via government instituted wealth distribution schemes is not.  Government welfare will not help and will only subsidize poverty thereby creating more of it.  

As for looters the property owners should have the right to defend their own property and not depend on government to protect it.  

If the owner is gone and people are starving, should it be okay to let people take food rather than let the food spoil?
When the blanket term like looting is used most tend to think of luxuries and not the fact that people may be taking necessities.

You're kinda missing my point.

A) Not saying it should be government welfare.
B) Charitable donations to get food and water and medicine in quick will reduce risk of rioting.
C) Looting/rioting is really bad for several reasons

1. destabilizes already fragile property rights
2. damages haitian businesses already pressed to breaking by ridiculous taxation and regulation. 70% of Haitian GDP comes from 35% of workers. The businessmen (not the farmers). If the businessmen go down, everyone does
3. destabilizes the government.

Unstable government means more extreme government. Extreme government means more economic interference, more corruption and more riots (so more instability)

Riots lead to dumb stuff like roadblocks which makes things even worse.

You're very unlikely to get laissez fair during a time of crisis.

Just look at what happened with the Great Depression. People will not accept "just leave it, things will be fine" when people are starving.

And if things get really bad, people might organize and take down the government entirely, which is usually REALLY bad, not least because the instability involved, but uprisings generally lead to more socialism and fascism (Back to square one).

Most aid money that goes to the government gets pocketed because corruption is so rife, but that just means you don't give money to someone who's going to give it to the government.

The most realistic ideal situation for Haiti is that

1. Things get back to normal relatively quick thanks to charitable aid.
2. Nothing really bad happens for a while, and government lets off on at least one area of economic destruction (allowing more foreign investments is most likely or reducing business regulation/price fixing)
3. After a time right guys get into power and enact market reforms
4. recovery begins.

People thinking they shouldn't give aid because it will help in the long run are making a really bad decision.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: libertylover on January 18, 2010, 11:37:46 AM
I agree with giving aid via independent agencies with a good track record of actually helping the people who need the assistance.  And I think you agree the government ain't that agency. 

And you hit on some of the reason's why Haiti was unable to take care of itself.  The high taxes and regulations means less investment.  Less investment in maintaining reserve stocks of supplies due to a fear that the government could come in at any time and take that property away.   No one is going to build a well constructed building for a store or a home knowing the government has a history of stealing.  They will keep their investments minimal and hide assets or simply not produce them in the first place.  People should ask themselves if you know that at anytime everything you work for has a good chance of being taken are you going to be motivated to work all that hard or to accumulate savings?
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: hellbilly on January 18, 2010, 06:48:30 PM
How can anyone blame them for looting? Especially food. Whatever they can grab, they should.

Rioting is a little different but again I guess it's understandable. During the Great Depression in the US I've seen only one report of rioting, the "Food Riot" in Milwaukee. The grocer had his arm broken by the crowd. No decapitations, no roaming gangs with machetes, no human-corpse road blocks, no cops driving by shooting them.

I don't think anyone really knows half the horrors that likely took place after Katrina. That disaster being compared to this one doesn't fit well enough since with Katrina there was plenty of warning, the local gov. had plenty of resources (school buses for example), etc. - the victims fucked themselves, followed by the local gov fucking them, and then the feds came along to suck them some more. I know two dummies who stayed in a house 45 min. north of NO who thought they were gonna die, and a couple others who lived NE of NO whose houses were demolished (they were smart enough to leave).

The riots in Greece are/were the predictable sort and just don't compare.

Giving to Haiti will help only in the short term unless a solid plan is applied to fix the issues.

Give them a few million now and what will that money have accomplished by this time next year? If little or nothing has changed, how is this not enabling conditions to stay the same? Granted, at least it isn't as bad, but why be satisfied with a short term fix?
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: davann on January 18, 2010, 07:27:20 PM
Near 20% unemployment here in the States. Why are we looking all the way to Haiti for someone to help?

With Haiti your dollars donated have a high chance of being misdirected. The Red Cross and United Way are fine examples of this. Far too many hands between you and the people you want to help.

Helping your neighbor does not have the same risk level. Yours hands come in direct contact with the people you are helping.

The Haiti people can have my prayers. My neighbor can have a $20 to buy food for his kids tonight.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 18, 2010, 07:37:48 PM
It doesn't matter if that's a true premise, and I doubt if it is. When people are in need, you give. If you don't, you're inhuman.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Rillion on January 18, 2010, 09:06:20 PM
It doesn't matter if that's a true premise, and I doubt if it is. When people are in need, you give. If you don't, you're inhuman.

There are always people in need. 
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: hellbilly on January 18, 2010, 10:21:38 PM
The Haiti people can have my prayers. My neighbor can have a $20 to buy food for his kids tonight.

That's along the thoughts I'm having too.

It doesn't matter if that's a true premise, and I doubt if it is. When people are in need, you give. If you don't, you're inhuman.

According to an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/opinion/14kidder.html), Haiti has had 10,000 charities working within it's borders - before the quake. That's a lot of giving.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 18, 2010, 11:22:38 PM
It doesn't matter if that's a true premise, and I doubt if it is. When people are in need, you give. If you don't, you're inhuman.

There are always people in need. 

Well then. I guess that relinquishes your obligation to ever be selfless. I think you shouldn't help anyone if it wont solve everything forever. Very good. Convincing argument.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: CaL DaVe on January 19, 2010, 01:03:30 AM
I think both sides have good arguments and combined make a whole that could actually make a difference.

Truth be told there is a desperate need for immediate aid, no matter how you look at it. The first thing that needs to happen is to stop the bleeding, so to speak. If you try and go there now and implement some kind of building code or long term solution, while people are still trapped under piles of concrete, they are going to look at you like you are a crazy person. Things need to be stabilized before anything long lasting solution can be put into action.

But the real solution to the earthquake hazard, once things have stabilized, is to have earthquake engineered buildings. And those only come with education. Rebuilding without teaching them how to build will only fix things short term.

Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: One two three on January 19, 2010, 05:57:00 AM
It doesn't matter if that's a true premise, and I doubt if it is. When people are in need, you give. If you don't, you're inhuman.

There are always people in need. 

Good point.  You completely destroyed everything Diogenes said.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: One two three on January 19, 2010, 05:58:31 AM
It doesn't matter if that's a true premise, and I doubt if it is. When people are in need, you give. If you don't, you're inhuman.

There are always people in need. 

Well then. I guess that relinquishes your obligation to ever be selfless. I think you shouldn't help anyone if it wont solve everything forever. Very good. Convincing argument.

Be selfless?  That is the opposite of what I suggest.  And you don't have an obligation to give random people with random problems your stuff.  I doubt even most communists think that.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: fatcat on January 19, 2010, 10:54:32 AM
How can anyone blame them for looting? Especially food. Whatever they can grab, they should.

Rioting is a little different but again I guess it's understandable. During the Great Depression in the US I've seen only one report of rioting, the "Food Riot" in Milwaukee. The grocer had his arm broken by the crowd. No decapitations, no roaming gangs with machetes, no human-corpse road blocks, no cops driving by shooting them.

The riots in Greece are/were the predictable sort and just don't compare.

Giving to Haiti will help only in the short term unless a solid plan is applied to fix the issues.

Give them a few million now and what will that money have accomplished by this time next year? If little or nothing has changed, how is this not enabling conditions to stay the same? Granted, at least it isn't as bad, but why be satisfied with a short term fix?

You've kept making this point about how aid is just a short term fix.

Whats the long term one?

I don't believe there is one anyone but a tiny minority of super-rich/super-influential people can have an effect on government. No one here is one of them.

I also disagree that short term fix has no effect on long term prosperity.

Rioting and looting is REALLY bad for stability. It doesn't matter if its understandable or not. Getting aid in will reduce the the risk of rioting which increases the ability for stability and economic recovery.

Since growth is exponential, the quicker things get back to "normal" (even though normal was terrible), the quicker things can improve.

How many examples are their of destable governments suddenly turning laissez fair? Not many compared to the ones that turn into socialist/fascist hell holes. The majority of opposition parties in Haiti are socialist and anti-capitalist (like the current government).

If things get back to normal quick enough, I would think its fairly likely the government will cave in on blocking foreign investments since it will be desperate to recover and recement their power.

If theres an uprising alot of people are going to die, businesses will be fucked over even more, and the government that is formed after is very unlikely to be any better.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 19, 2010, 07:13:05 PM




Be selfless?  That is the opposite of what I suggest.  And you don't have an obligation to give random people with random problems your stuff.  I doubt even most communists think that.

I think we do. As people we do have an obligation to help one another.

Communists think the government is best to decide whom gets what, and I think it's up to the individual.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on January 19, 2010, 10:52:02 PM




Be selfless?  That is the opposite of what I suggest.  And you don't have an obligation to give random people with random problems your stuff.  I doubt even most communists think that.

I think we do. As people we do have an obligation to help one another.

Communists think the government is best to decide whom gets what, and I think it's up to the individual.
I also think that individuals have a moral obligation to help each other even though we may disagree on HOW to help.

I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't help one another exactly, but I do think that some of us would argue that a tough love approach can be more effective sometimes.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: davann on January 20, 2010, 07:24:55 PM
I think we do. As people we do have an obligation to help one another.


I have no obligation to help anyone and will resist any efforts attempting to make me do so. I hope this vernacular is a holdover from your days as a lefty. You'd be best served to rid yourself of this poison.

That said, I have no problems choosing to help others by my own free will.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 20, 2010, 07:59:00 PM
I think we do. As people we do have an obligation to help one another.


I have no obligation to help anyone and will resist any efforts attempting to make me do so. I hope this vernacular is a holdover from your days as a lefty. You'd be best served to rid yourself of this poison.

That said, I have no problems choosing to help others by my own free will.


Don't be a douchebag. You as a human being have an ethical obligation to help others. I am not a lefty, you're just a fucktard. No one has to "make" you do anything because you should know who you are in relation to the rest of the world. You are going to resist efforts. What efforts? No one is going to point a gun to your head because no one has to.

I am not the one poisoned by selfishness here.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: davann on January 21, 2010, 01:56:54 PM
I think we do. As people we do have an obligation to help one another.


I have no obligation to help anyone and will resist any efforts attempting to make me do so. I hope this vernacular is a holdover from your days as a lefty. You'd be best served to rid yourself of this poison.

That said, I have no problems choosing to help others by my own free will.


Don't be a douchebag. You as a human being have an ethical obligation to help others. I am not a lefty, you're just a fucktard. No one has to "make" you do anything because you should know who you are in relation to the rest of the world. You are going to resist efforts. What efforts? No one is going to point a gun to your head because no one has to.


1. I am not being a douche bag. Just offering some friendly advice. Tone does not translate well in writing.

2. The concept of ethical obligation is what started the progressives on their path. Do you really want to be using the same vocabulary and philosophy?

3. Stating that I have an "ethical obligation" is an effort to convince me I do, even if in a subtle way. I will resist this and all other types of efforts.

4. Neither of us know each other and we both made assumptions based on what each of us wrote. You use words and concepts commonly used by the left so I mistook your political beginnings as coming from the left. You mistook me for some one that is callous towards his fellow man.  Seems we were both wrong, unless of course that is where you started. Is it?
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 21, 2010, 02:30:11 PM

1. I am not being a douche bag. Just offering some friendly advice. Tone does not translate well in writing.

2. The concept of ethical obligation is what started the progressives on their path. Do you really want to be using the same vocabulary and philosophy?

3. Stating that I have an "ethical obligation" is an effort to convince me I do, even if in a subtle way. I will resist this and all other types of efforts.

4. Neither of us know each other and we both made assumptions based on what each of us wrote. You use words and concepts commonly used by the left so I mistook your political beginnings as coming from the left. You mistook me for some one that is callous towards his fellow man.  Seems we were both wrong, unless of course that is where you started. Is it?


There is a world of difference between their philosophy and mine. They would say your obligation is a legal one. That you must give because its the law. I say rather that you have a social obligation to give, and would not enforce the obligation.

On your third point, you question the idea of being obligated morally to help others. I'll address this later today.

Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: davann on January 21, 2010, 02:38:28 PM

1. I am not being a douche bag. Just offering some friendly advice. Tone does not translate well in writing.

2. The concept of ethical obligation is what started the progressives on their path. Do you really want to be using the same vocabulary and philosophy?

3. Stating that I have an "ethical obligation" is an effort to convince me I do, even if in a subtle way. I will resist this and all other types of efforts.

4. Neither of us know each other and we both made assumptions based on what each of us wrote. You use words and concepts commonly used by the left so I mistook your political beginnings as coming from the left. You mistook me for some one that is callous towards his fellow man.  Seems we were both wrong, unless of course that is where you started. Is it?


There is a world of difference between their philosophy and mine. They would say your obligation is a legal one. That you must give because its the law. I say rather that you have a social obligation to give, and would not enforce the obligation.

On your third point, you question the idea of being obligated morally to help others. I'll address this later today.



And I will resist it. For instance, I do not question... I know.  <--- tone of sentence is indignant and adversarial.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 21, 2010, 06:59:02 PM




There is a world of difference between their philosophy and mine. They would say your obligation is a legal one. That you must give because its the law. I say rather that you have a social obligation to give, and would not enforce the obligation.

On your third point, you question the idea of being obligated morally to help others. I'll address this later today.



And I will resist it. For instance, I do not question... I know.  <--- tone of sentence is indignant and adversarial.

So, you're watching two guys argue. You are the only person around. One pulls out a knife and stabs the other, before driving off. What you are telling me is that you don't think you have a social obligation to call an ambulance, is that right?
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: theCelestrian on January 21, 2010, 07:06:08 PM
So, you're watching two guys argue. You are the only person around. One pulls out a knife and stabs the other, before driving off. What you are telling me is that you don't think you have a social obligation to call an ambulance, is that right?

Ooo ooo ooo.... I love this question.

Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: davann on January 21, 2010, 07:39:11 PM

So, you're watching two guys argue. You are the only person around. One pulls out a knife and stabs the other, before driving off. What you are telling me is that you don't think you have a social obligation to call an ambulance, is that right?

Yes, that is basically right. Although, my personal opinion on it is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 25, 2010, 04:05:02 AM

So, you're watching two guys argue. You are the only person around. One pulls out a knife and stabs the other, before driving off. What you are telling me is that you don't think you have a social obligation to call an ambulance, is that right?

Yes, that is basically right. Although, my personal opinion on it is irrelevant.

Well, I guess I have to attack this from a different angle then.

I don't think the right response is to make a law.

Telling you you are signed into a social contract means you cannot get out of it except by leaving society, and furthermore, you never formally agreed to it. So that angle is a no-go.

I also don't believe you should call because you would want others to do so if you were in that situation, because all you would have to say in response is "I am selfish". Its also an emotional appeal anyways.

You're probably not religious, so that angle doesn't work.

Even so, leaving a person to die when you can help is surely a moral evil.

That said there is something I can impose on you without your consent, and I have every right to do so, even if you don't like it. If I knew you personally and you shared with me this opinion, I have every right to discontinue association with you and there is nothing you could do about it. I imagine many others would feel the same way and this would lead to you either deciding to change, or become lonely.




Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: hellbilly on January 25, 2010, 08:25:27 PM
That said there is something I can impose on you without your consent, and I have every right to do so, even if you don't like it. If I knew you personally and you shared with me this opinion, I have every right to discontinue association with you and there is nothing you could do about it. I imagine many others would feel the same way and this would lead to you either deciding to change, or become lonely.

Maybe not.. he'd have a number of other people to freely associate with, myself included, who's opinion differs from yours. It's that simple- a difference of opinion, they're plentiful, welcome, or at least tolerated, in any progressive society.

No one has committed any "moral evil" by opting not to send money (of all things) to Haiti.

When was the last time Haiti sent donations to survivors of other disasters? When does it seem likely that they ever will be in a position to do so in the future? Does that make them morally evil also?
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: blackie on January 25, 2010, 08:31:30 PM
When was the last time Haiti sent donations to survivors of other disasters? When does it seem likely that they ever will be in a position to do so in the future?
I'm sure people from Haiti do it all the time.
Title: Re: Why giving aid to Haiti will help and not "enable" poverty
Post by: theCelestrian on January 25, 2010, 08:50:15 PM
That said there is something I can impose on you without your consent, and I have every right to do so, even if you don't like it. If I knew you personally and you shared with me this opinion, I have every right to discontinue association with you and there is nothing you could do about it. I imagine many others would feel the same way and this would lead to you either deciding to change, or become lonely.

You could, because you chose to do this - but in the end this assumes 100% compliance with ostracization.  In the end all this would do is create a black market anyway - as someone would be willing to associate with the individual (personal or otherwise) either for the extra personal or economic gain it brings them.


I also don't believe you should call because you would want others to do so if you were in that situation, because all you would have to say in response is "I am selfish". Its also an emotional appeal anyways.

Not so sure if I agree - but I think this is a result of a difference of opinion of "where morality comes from."  If someone believes morality is something that starts within the individual whose foundation is built upon treating others in a manner you would wish yourself (or the person whom you care about/love/value most if not yourself) to be treated - that would then make this:

Quote
because all you would have to say in response is "I am selfish".

A non-sequitur.  Of course I'm selfish, and therefore it's in my best interest (and those people I care about) to show others the same level of compassion that I would like myself or my loved ones to receive because in the long term it's only positive.  I know you believe morality/ethics spawns from faith/religion, but then how does that explain the multitudes of atheists and otherwise "amoral" individuals following what looks by all accounts to be a "good Judeao-Christian type morality," which may include giving to charity and volunteering their time?