And I'm sure we'll do just that. The US is generally the first and biggest on the scene when it comes to aid/relief. Lot of good it does us. Call me cynical, but it sure seems like it's all taken for granted.

Relevance? Because we have more, we should give more? Trotsky would be proud.



It's not the 20¢, it's the principal. I don't think a public enterprise should be responsible--it should be a private effort, funded by people who willingly support it.

BTW, France, as well as other European powers, colonized much of SE Asia. That's why it's relevant.

Instead of buying a couple of CD's this week, I will give the money to a charity to help these people.

Almost exactly a year ago there was a fire in my block of flats and I thought I was going to lose everything I owned. It was a terrifying experience. I got lucky because the fire was contained, but these people have lost everything, their homes, business, families.

I'm not a great fan of charities but when something of this magnitude happens you just have to put the cynisicm to one side and do something to help.

For which you should be lauded.

You're thinking of public/private enterprise can be applied to about anything including the war with Iraq. It doesn't make it right.

French colonization many years ago has nothing to do with humanitarian aid or tsunami that hit asia 2 days ago. It's irrelevant.

I really don't understand what you're going on about, Bill. I think we're all cynical to a certain extent, but to argue about this when over 44,000 people have died and even more have lost their homes, is silly. And to presume that I haven't donated (or will) to this cause, you're just being an ignorant fuck.

I agree entirely. I wasn't the one who turned this into a public policy thread. All I did was disagree (a high crime, I know) with the people who want the government to send money so they can feel like they've done somehting.

I have the utmost respect for everyone who's made any kind of contribution. I also have the utmost faith in humankind's willingness to help others.

I have no respect at all, however, for those who couldn't be bothered to do anything on their own, but will call for the government to step in. All you're really doing is trying to take credit for throwing someone else's money at the problem, and then trying to feel that you're somehow a better person for it. That's dishonest.

But then again, who am I to say, I'm just a smug, ignorant fuck--or was that a prick. I forget.

Oh, and another thing, I presumed nothing. I merely asked a question. May I conclude from your defensive stance that the answer to my question was that no, indeed, you did not make any donation on your own?

And that, folks, is the crux of libertarianism in a nutshell. The question isn't whether they should be helped. The question is whom? In recent history, governments have been the main aid givers, and Billz is simply questioning that precedent. In a sense it comes down to trust. Libertarians believe that if people are willing to help, they will by their own means. The liberal mindset tends to distrust the individual (using fair examples of Enron, the S&L scandal, and others as backup) and use government controls to regulate kindness and decency, be it through aid, environmental or work laws, or what have you.

That being said, the "have more, get more = Communism" accusation is a bit severe. The same principle would apply to a flat U.S. income tax, which I would suspect most Libertarians would concede is a step in the right direction (although probaby not ideal). The U.S. spends the most money in foreign aid, but it's almost dead last in aid in respect to national GNP. If every country agreed to the same amount, smaller countries would get screwed. Should Americans give the most? IMHO, yes. The issue, once again, is what the channel of support is.

Would lots of U.S. government aid make us look better in the eyes of world? Possibly in the short term, but it's probably analogous to putting a band-aid on a severed limb. Public aid in whatever form needs to be consistent policy and not a one-off public relations opportunity.

up to 52,000 dead.. Wow....Sigh

ANDI DJATMIKO, Associated Press Writer

BANDA ACEH, Indonesia - Mourners in Sri Lanka used their bare hands to dig graves Tuesday while hungry islanders in Indonesia turned to looting in the aftermath of Asia's devastating tsunamis. Thousands more bodies were found in Indonesia, dramatically increasing the death toll across 11 nations to more than 52,000.

Well put Sketch. I know Billz and I have gone round and round about this on many other threads/arguments. I for one, like it, because he is actually pretty informed, coherent and consistent in his opinions/rantings, even though he is a heartless bastard

Good news, guys. Model Petra Nemcova is still alive! Even better, she's probably suddenly single!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/m ... ml?cnn=yes

http://www.obner.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t ... c&start=25

Too late, but it was a nice try.

I'm allowed to joke because I donated $100 to relief charity.

I donated $101 so you can't if I say so.

Shit, I hope it isn't too late to tag another two bucks on there.

Back atcha.

Hey Billzebub, you are right that I was the first in this thread to complain about the administration not offering immediate assistance to survivors of the tsunami. I'll stand by that. I also thought that some of your early posts consisted of gallows humor, at best, that was bound to attract someone's attention.

In contraposition to my post being inappropriate, it might be just as inappropriate to turn this thread into yet another soapbox sermon on the behest of your noble Libertarian ideals.

Beyond that, whining about the unappreciative world that sups greedily at the withered teat of Uncle Sam seems simple-minded and greedy in the face of such massive death.

Don't worry, I'm pretty democratic. You can humiliate whoever you want.

My last post sounded far less conciliatory than I was shooting for. I better stop posting in this thread.

I'd wager the US will still donate way more relief funding than any other nation. I know we all want another "bush sucks" example, but ...

Nah, I perceived an olive branch. Subdued cheers in the face of an awful event.

I see what you're getting at here, but at the same time, I see it in a different way too. Let's say you're a waitress, making about $13,000 a year. I plan on sending in tonight's tips to one of the previously-mentioned charities, but let's face it, the amount I would love to donate is a big chunk of my rent, my utilities, etc. Taxes are automatically taken out of my checks, my tips are taxed. If I'm going to get taxed, shouldn't I have a say in where my money goes? I want my money to be sent to help in SE Asia. Not so that everyone will crown the U.S. "Most Charitable Nation," not so I can be held on Asian shoulders and carried around, but because its the right thing to do! In situations like this, we shouldn't think only like Americans, but also as humans.

Sure. Let's not have welfare or national highway repair or anti-drug programs because you want x percent of your taxes going to SE Asia's tsunami relief funds.

Also, that isn't how government relief funding works anyway.

I'd rather have x percent of my taxes going to SE Asia's tsunami relief funds than to things like No Child Left Behind. No matter though. Regardless of how I vote or what I say, my taxes still go to fund things I do support, like the programs you mentioned, as well as thing I disagree with, like the war.

I'm just trying to say that its not fair to say "put your money where your mouth is" when not everyone has enough money to give a sizable donation, at least one compared to what the government could give. I never said that we should take food from starving American babies and put it in the mouths of tsunami victims. I know its the thought that counts, but I don't think my small donation is going to put a dent in the tragedy.

That's pretty silly. Your small dent, no, but 250 million small dents, yes.