Last edited by a moderator:
Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor
- Thread starter camilus
- Start date
No one is forcing them to sell their goods and services, SAM. Just tell all Indians to stop selling their products to the rich nations, they'll listen to someone as smart as you on world economics and international finance.
Or if you know of such a violation, then you should contact the UN ...the UN can fix all those problems in the world, right?
Baron Max
No one is forcing them to sell their goods and services, SAM. Just tell all Indians to stop selling their products to the rich nations, they'll listen to someone as smart as you on world economics and international finance.
Or if you know of such a violation, then you should contact the UN ...the UN can fix all those problems in the world, right?
Baron Max
Don't worry, they thought of a better way. Which is why China owns you now.
Who's "they"? Are you saying that the poor people of India forced China to buy the USA?
So, now that China owns the USA, are you going to stop blaming the USA for every ill in the world? I mean, now you can turn that hatred towards China, right? :shrug:
Baron Max
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
And the rich nations should stop forcing other nations to privitize things like water. I mean, that's a nice way to create poverty.
I love the naivte, must be blissful, that poverty in all or even most cases, simply happens.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
That is not the case. Those nations are in fact forced to buy and sell. They are forced to take down their tariffs. They are forced to privitize certain resources they often would rather not. They are forced to change investment laws and ownership laws of companies and land. I mean the list goes on and on.
Forced by whom? And if that's actually true, then you should contact the UN for an immediate stop to such practices.
Baron Max
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
And not you?
There have been a wide range of responses critical of those practices. I am not as big a fan of the UN as you seem to be. I have chosen others.
Do some research into the collusion between the IMF, corporations and dictators, for example. One rather common form is for the IMF in conjunction with corporations to either demand or suggest to the dictator that this or that project - a dam, for example, be built. The corporations - often with board of directors' ties to the IMF - have the plans and get paid. Thus money travels from banks through the dictator into the corporations - who made the suggestion in the first place. In the process a large amount of money, not coincidentally goes into the coffers of the dictator. The dam, or whatever the hell it is, often does not benefit the citizens or is not worth the upcoming price. Sometimes the building of the project directly creates poor people.
The dictator is no longer in power. Perhaps he lives in Europe with his wife and her shoes.
The IMF demands a return on those loans from the new dictator - which means the citizens will be taxed for it - or even democratically elected people. IOW people who did not benefit and did not choose and were not considered are being forced to pay. If they have problems with paying, the IMF then tells the government how they must run their country. These rules often create more poor people.
I know if you Baron Max were a citizen in one of these countries you would lead an armed and very successful rebellion, so you will see these people as choosing to be poor. Mere mortal can only envy you. and the ones who died trying to live up to your hypothetical example also envy you and your hypothetical bravery and ultimate freedom.
The sad thing is you probably believed your government when those very rebels were called terrorists or criminals and simply turned the page in the paper while cheap resources, etc. entered the US and supported your brave hypothetical fantasies of what you would do and what you deserve.
Another area of research: check out how many times US military forces entered a Latin American country at the behest of a corporation.
Are those practices illegal? And by "illegal", I mean as violations of legitimate laws by legitimate nations of the world.
If not, then .....?
What you've presented is simply accusations of ...well, not being very nice or something like that. Hey, life's tough.
They do choose poverty! And worse, those same people who can't even feed themselves, proceed to make more babies that they can't feed! And you seem to feel sorry for them. I say, "Fuck 'em!"
I was born dirt-poor and worked my ass off, saved my money, then retired at 55 to enjoy the fruits of my labors. If I can do it, .......
Baron Max
You never cease to amaze me. How ignorant and sheltered a man can be...wow. You just keep setting new standards.
There are places in this country, and this world, where jobs disappear and don't come back. There are people who lose their jobs before retirement and can't get hired anywhere else. Some people have mental illnesses, or severe learning disorders, and have no way of keeping a job, and no one to help them get on track in other ways. Some schools simply don't you teach you anything, don't provide the right environment for kids to learn, or even maintain interest.
Nobody chooses poverty. Stop and think for a second before you let that garbage out of your mouth.
So move to another country or to another area where there are jobs. Illegal Mexicans are doing it all the time in the USA.
So try to work at a different type of job, a different area of the country, a different country, or find a charitable organization that will give you food and shelter for free.
That's what charities are for. And since you're so concerned about them, why don't you send them your money or give them your job?
Find a different school. Move to a different area of the country. Move to a different country.
Perhaps. But then they seem perfectly willing to bring more little kids into that same level of poverty. So ...the parents choose poverty for their children. Geez, how nice of them, huh?
Baron Max
Mod Hat - Copy & paste
Mod Hat — Copy & paste
I have edited the opening post of this thread according to Section 7 of the Forum Rules, Regulations, and Recommendations v.2.3. The posting of entire works is formally prohibited.
Additionally, we have long discouraged the presentation of source material without user-generated content. It is helpful to the discussion if members provide some personal context in which they perceive and/or understand the source material. This will at the very least, help establish that a post is not mere propaganda.
Thank you.
Mod Hat — Copy & paste
I have edited the opening post of this thread according to Section 7 of the Forum Rules, Regulations, and Recommendations v.2.3. The posting of entire works is formally prohibited.
Additionally, we have long discouraged the presentation of source material without user-generated content. It is helpful to the discussion if members provide some personal context in which they perceive and/or understand the source material. This will at the very least, help establish that a post is not mere propaganda.
Thank you.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Sure, bribes tend to be illegal, as one small example. But I thought you were asking about force. Are you shifting the topic and conceding the other point or are you going to play grasshopper defense?
Are you also equating law with ethics? Why? You seemed very skeptical about laws elsewhere? I mean slavery was legal.
Yeah, it seems pretty clear you are conceding the point. You're a tough guy. I am glad you would think it was ok if that stuff happened to you.
Well, this is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to start. 1) no, often they were feeding themselves just fine until a corporation got together with IMF and a dictator and destroyed their lives. Sometimes you personally benefitted from this. 2) Of course I feel sorry for them.
But I certainly can't argue with your indifference and hatred. I am sure you are correct about those things.
Yup, you're right, your life situation was exactly the same, there were no contingent factors. You are great, others who suffer suck. Of course you seem to suffer people like liberals. They seem to upset you, make you angry....Why can't you pull yourself up by those oh, so powerful bootstraps and stop being annoyed. Why it's almost like those liberals were dictators sending death squads trained by the CIA to your village. You know what those people in the village should do, so do it yourself.
Of is this one of those can teach, can't do kinda things.
In moving from a "commons" that needs protection to using the metaphor of a "lifeboat" for the entire First World of prosperity, Hardin makes a couple of assumptions not met in practice.
One is, that the lifeboat is somehow of a defined size and capacity. We see that in every illustration - of the atmosphere, of a pasture, all things of defined size and capacity.
Prosperous civilization is not so easily defined, or given a definite size and capacity. To push the analogy: the water around the lifeboat is full of boards, pontoons, rope, tools, and so forth. The lifeboat already constructed is very badly designed, and of very low capacity compared with what is possible.
Another is that the people outside the users of the commons are contributing nothing to the maintenance of it, and therefore can be excluded from its benefits without risk or loss. Again to push: the people in the water are helping to keep the badly designed lifeboat from capsizing - they are stabilizing it. Cutting them off from all benefits risks the loss of their aid, and then of the boat.
One is, that the lifeboat is somehow of a defined size and capacity. We see that in every illustration - of the atmosphere, of a pasture, all things of defined size and capacity.
Prosperous civilization is not so easily defined, or given a definite size and capacity. To push the analogy: the water around the lifeboat is full of boards, pontoons, rope, tools, and so forth. The lifeboat already constructed is very badly designed, and of very low capacity compared with what is possible.
Another is that the people outside the users of the commons are contributing nothing to the maintenance of it, and therefore can be excluded from its benefits without risk or loss. Again to push: the people in the water are helping to keep the badly designed lifeboat from capsizing - they are stabilizing it. Cutting them off from all benefits risks the loss of their aid, and then of the boat.
Whose "ethics"?
Should the western world force others to abide by their standards of "ethics"?
And sometimes not! And it seems that what you're implying by that is that no one should ever try to help anyone because the results might not be as good as one intended. The IMF and private corporations might have the best intentions, but it all goes to shit. Therefore, no one should ever help anyone!
Baron Max