AIDS expenditures and Nation States

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I do not extend personal responsibilities to that of nation states. Personal ethos should not be transferred en masse to nation states. This appears to me to be presumptuous, not looking at a more sophisticated manner in which nation states have traditionally interacted and probably will always interact.

Nation states usually do NOT act altruistically. I am aware of very few instances, usually one blow deals, where that has been done.

The only nation of which I have read that has acted altruistically, has been the US, under things like the Marshall Plan, although one might argue it furthered the self-interest by having a strong Western Europe.

Anybody who wants to postulate a role of altruism for nation states is charmingly naive.

Christ spoke to the individual, he did not give political advice, other than to render unto Ceasar's that which is Ceasar's. Anybody going further than that is extrapolating more than they should from his teachings.

You are trying to rephrase the entire debate. We aren't talking about whether it is POSSIBLE to act altruistically (since the answer should be entirely obvious given that this nation and others give away trillions of dollars a year to impoverished countries), we are talking about whether we should ASPIRE to act altruistically. For some reason, you have indicated that we should not even attempt to act altruistically as a nation and that you get angry when people seek to do so.

In a Democracy, the will of the people represents the direction of the government. For us, our individual perceptions very much influence the ability of the nation to act altruistically. Christ counseled that we should treat others in a certain way. Fortunately, many Americans understand that message and work to pool our collective resources for the benefit of others. What I can't understand is why a person with as much knowledge about the gospel like yourself would then try to stand in the way of that process.

Your anger, it appears, stems not from what the nation is doing as a whole but from the fact that your personal taxes are being spent in faraway lands. As an INDIVIDUAL who has been counseled to assist others, wouldn't the use of your tax money to cure Africans of AIDS be something you would be proud of?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You are trying to rephrase the entire debate. We aren't talking about whether it is POSSIBLE to act altruistically (since the answer should be entirely obvious given that this nation and others give away trillions of dollars a year to impoverished countries), we are talking about whether we should ASPIRE to act altruistically. For some reason, you have indicated that we should not even attempt to act altruistically as a nation and that you get angry when people seek to do so.

In a Democracy, the will of the people represents the direction of the government. For us, our individual perceptions very much influence the ability of the nation to act altruistically. Christ counseled that we should treat others in a certain way. Fortunately, many Americans understand that message and work to pool our collective resources for the benefit of others. What I can't understand is why a person with as much knowledge about the gospel like yourself would then try to stand in the way of that process.

Your anger, it appears, stems not from what the nation is doing as a whole but from the fact that your personal taxes are being spent in faraway lands. As an INDIVIDUAL who has been counseled to assist others, wouldn't the use of your tax money to cure Africans of AIDS be something you would be proud of?

Oh dear counselor, anger is not something I have a luxury of affording.

First, the politicians who work under the guise of altruism are much more cynical than I. So if they cloak their works as altruistic, you can bet there is something afoot, such as under the table contracts with the pharmaceuticals "researching" cures.

Second, we should not act that way, because it won't work. All politics are local. It is not possible to act as a nation state. A nation state is not just a collection of people, it's rules, regulations, bureaucracies, policies, industries, cultures and much, much more. If you could see the calculus of how the intermingling efforts cascade off everybody, you'd understand, it's incomprehensible.

Third, it's in the interests of nation states not to act detrimentally toward others, but to assist nation states, poorly run who won't follow our advice renders the problems unfixable. What is undoable shouldn't be attempted. It's too impractical and a waste of time and effort.

We should be much more pragmatic and fiduciarily responsible to the taxpayers. There should be a return on the tax investment.

Indivdually I should help others, but my nation has no duty to reach beyond our borders, and if it does, it should have achievable goals or objectives. We shouldn't have the sieve approach.

AIDS research is basically a sieve approach. Put money after money and ignore all other worthy causes. It's a losing battle that will never be won.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Oh dear counselor, anger is not something I have a luxury of affording.

First, the politicians who work under the guise of altruism are much more cynical than I. So if they cloak their works as altruistic, you can bet there is something afoot, such as under the table contracts with the pharmaceuticals "researching" cures.

Second, we should not act that way, because it won't work. All politics are local. It is not possible to act as a nation state. A nation state is not just a collection of people, it's rules, regulations, bureaucracies, policies, industries, cultures and much, much more. If you could see the calculus of how the intermingling efforts cascade off everybody, you'd understand, it's incomprehensible.

Third, it's in the interests of nation states not to act detrimentally toward others, but to assist nation states, poorly run who won't follow our advice renders the problems unfixable. What is undoable shouldn't be attempted. It's too impractical and a waste of time and effort.

We should be much more pragmatic and fiduciarily responsible to the taxpayers. There should be a return on the tax investment.

Indivdually I should help others, but my nation has no duty to reach beyond our borders, and if it does, it should have achievable goals or objectives. We shouldn't have the sieve approach.

AIDS research is basically a sieve approach. Put money after money and ignore all other worthy causes. It's a losing battle that will never be won.

Again you are focusing on the wrong issues. This thread is not about building up other nations. It is about assisting individuals within those nations. Your cynicism about the cold, callous nature of nations is chilling to say the least. Individuals who look at a system and say nothing can be done are the individuals least likely to do anything. We are not here merely to maintain the status quo.

If you want a return on your tax dollars for AIDS research, I suggest you board a plane and view the face of a person whose life has been improved because of AIDS drugs available in large part because of US funding for research. Your assertion that AIDS is a losing battle that will never be won ignores the tremendous gains that have already been made in combating AIDS and a bright hope for the future.

Hope- a word you must hate. An emotion that you have tried to purge along with other emotions such as passion, caring, concern, love, fear, anguish. Seperating emotion from your work may be a necessary evil, but be cautious: seperating emotion from life is simply evil.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Hope- a word you must hate. An emotion that you have tried to purge along with other emotions such as passion, caring, concern, love, fear, anguish.

No need to get personal hoya. I doubt you know enough about Archaea to make such a statement.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

No need to get personal hoya. I doubt you know enough about Archaea to make such a statement.

I am not trying to be insulting. The emotion comment goes back to several discussions Archaea and I have had over time regarding the usefulness or desireability of emotion which he referenced in his first paragraph.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You are trying to rephrase the entire debate. We aren't talking about whether it is POSSIBLE to act altruistically (since the answer should be entirely obvious given that this nation and others give away trillions of dollars a year to impoverished countries), we are talking about whether we should ASPIRE to act altruistically. For some reason, you have indicated that we should not even attempt to act altruistically as a nation and that you get angry when people seek to do so.

In a Democracy, the will of the people represents the direction of the government. For us, our individual perceptions very much influence the ability of the nation to act altruistically. Christ counseled that we should treat others in a certain way. Fortunately, many Americans understand that message and work to pool our collective resources for the benefit of others. What I can't understand is why a person with as much knowledge about the gospel like yourself would then try to stand in the way of that process.

Your anger, it appears, stems not from what the nation is doing as a whole but from the fact that your personal taxes are being spent in faraway lands. As an INDIVIDUAL who has been counseled to assist others, wouldn't the use of your tax money to cure Africans of AIDS be something you would be proud of?

Nation states should have one focus when encountering the world outside their borders: security and national interest (OK, that's two, but what the hell). I think it is folly to base a foreign policy on altruism. If what we do in our interest also helps others, then great. Otherwise, we have to look out for numer one.

Your call to us as individuals to assist others is compelling in that as Christians we should be engaged in such endeavors. However, how does that translate in using our tax dollars to do so? This is a typical ploy used by the left.

If a group of people want to get together and push for funding a cause, then more power to them. I suggest you start with the deep pockets of Ed Asner, Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen, and Rob Reiner (although I really like Reiner). As well off and blessed as they are, they spend an inordinant amount of time and effort trying to guide tax dollars to their pet projects and interests. Those four alone could dedicate significant seed money and a bully pulpit to an effort to educate Africans on AIDS prevention. I would think Hollywood would happily get behind this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The only nation of which I have read that has acted altruistically, has been the US, under things like the Marshall Plan, although one might argue it furthered the self-interest by having a strong Western Europe.

More cynicism.

If you look at per capita foreign aid among "wealthy countries", the U.S. isn't dead last, but pretty close. Check this out:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html

We fare better in private giving, but are still way behind the Norwegians.

There is one area where we completely dominate: defense spending. We spend more than the rest of the world combined. Woohoo!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Nation states should have one focus when encountering the world outside their borders: security and national interest (OK, that's two, but what the hell). I think it is folly to base a foreign policy on altruism. If what we do in our interest also helps others, then great. Otherwise, we have to look out for numer one.

Machiavelli would be so proud.

No one is proposing to base an entire foreign policy on altruism. But to imply that everything we do as a nation should be based on self-interest alone is just wrong. It's a darn good thing the US government did not have this attitude following WW2.

Thankfully, I think most folks believe otherwise. Including GWB:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in705486.shtml

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Machiavelli would be so proud.

No one is proposing to base an entire foreign policy on altruism. But to imply that everything we do as a nation should be based on self-interest alone is just wrong. It's a darn good thing the US government did not have this attitude following WW2.

Thankfully, I think most folks believe otherwise. Including GWB:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in705486.shtml

No kidding!!! People who think we can be isolationist today are living in a bubble. The world is heading towards a truly global economy, if it isn't already past that point now. What happens to others will dramatically affect us, and vice versa.

If nations can't find the will to be altruistic, they should be generous anyways knowing it will come back to be of benefit in the future.

[Archaea]

hoya and homeboy are gloriously naive about why and how many nations act "altruistically".

Japan frequently acts altruistically by ensuring certain moneys are donated to purchase certain goods from Japanese suppliers.

I'm certain if I examined the donations of all countries, in all but emergency situations, that the same would be true.

Furthermore, excpet through certain private gifting channels, much of the money aimed at helpling the helpless often just end up in the hands of a despot, especially in Africa, which has some of the worst governmental systems known to humanity.