[ThePublicOpinions]

When liberals say we have a moral responsibility to the third world, they are correct. Nationalism has never appealed to me. What difference does it make if someone was born a mile from me or ten thousand miles from me? I think I should love them or hate them equally. Nor do I believe in unconditional love. In the Fountainhead Rand argues that we love people for exactly who they are, and if they were someone else we would not love them, else that love is meaningless. I feel for the billions of people who live today without the basic necessities of life that we in the west enjoy.


So I think we have a moral responsibility to the third world. A responsibility to end warfare and genocide, to make starvation an issue for historians to debate instead of a pressing concern for untold millions. We should not wave our arms of their problems.


I think the most important thing we can do, trite though it may be, is to set a good example. Just as successful people in life are imitated, so are successful nations. So we must be the change we wish to see. The economic history of the world proves that their is no economic system that ameliorates living conditions, not only for the elite, but for the poorest of the poor, like capitalism. So we must separate state and economics. We must return the unregulated free market. Not only because this is the only moral economic system, not only because it is untouchable on utilitarian grounds, but also because there is no force for peace in this world like trade.


Bastiat wrote that when goods do not cross borders armies will. So we must do away with war. War is strictly the providence of the state. Absent coercive taxation and the ability to debase the money supply no organization could afford the incredibly unproductive effort of social organization that is warfare. If we were to abolish coercive taxation, if we were return to the principles of sound money and a sound economy, we would have world peace.

[Michaeluj]

Nor do I believe in unconditional love. In the Fountainhead Rand argues that we love people for exactly who they are, and if they were someone else we would not love them, else that love is meaningless. I feel for the billions of people who live today without the basic necessities of life that we in the west enjoy.

That's not love: it's pity, and you're not 'loving' them for who they are; instead, it's for what they do not have. Nevertheless, even if it is love that you are propounding, the standards needed to necessitate love to such an enormous extent is for people to be loved for nothing more than desiring food, housing and medicine, features that all people have, requiring loving all, thus being universal in varied environments, thus being unconditional love.

Also, this thread is rather empty of practical arguments and other substance. Trite is correct.

[J Oswald]

The outcome of the OP's suggestions for the Third World would be the breakdown of society and millions of dead people. The Third World is rife with tribalism, and oftentimes the only thing keeping two traditionally-opposed tribes from tearing into one another is government policing, whether from the local government or supplied by a third party, such as the African Union or a neighboring state.

The problem with governments in the Third World (especially in Africa) is not that they are given too much power, but rather that they are corrupt and inefficient. This can be rectified, but most certainly by abolishing the government. All that would do is ensure that baksheesh is paid to local people as opposed to authorities working for the central government, which would have even worse effects for the country at large.

Michaeluj had it right. I've never heard of a Libertarian capable of making a rational argument on how to develop the Third World.

[Andropov]

So I think we have a moral responsibility to the third world.

Why?

[TropicalK]

So because YOU believe something, then WE should all chip in to help the third world. I personally do not give a rats ass about all these billions of worthless individuals toiling away. In fact, I believe the world would be a better place if Somalians just died already.

[Lightman]

So because YOU believe something, then WE should all chip in to help the third world. I personally do not give a rats ass about all these billions of worthless individuals toiling away. In fact, I believe the world would be a better place if Somalians just died already.

This is why calling Randism a morality or ethical code is contradictory.

[myrmeleo]

So I think we have a moral responsibility to the third world.

Do you agree with Peter Singer's analysis that everyone has a unique moral responsibility to donate their own wealth to developing nations?

I personally do not give a rats ass about all these billions of worthless individuals toiling away. In fact, I believe the world would be a better place if Somalians just died already.

Best post so far.

[Chill]

Worst post so far...

[Orestes]

Chill, I think you didn't catch the irony...


Wow, every once in a while I get a little bit closer to buying the Libertarian narrative about good-intentioned entrepreneur who just wants to be left alone, and once that is done, his natural goodness of heart will shine through private charities blooming like flowers, and then an individual like TropicalK comes along and blows the whole neat cover away with just one sentence.



"Libertarianism. Turning dickishness into an ideology since 1950's"

[TropicalK]

I refuse to pay lip-service to crappy morals in a feel good fest. I'd bet that most of the moral high ground people in this thread have personally donated very little of their own wealth to charitable causes. Talk is cheap, and action unveils preference. The difference between me and the others on this board is that I make no intention to hide my true beliefs.

[Orestes]

Cool, more power to you for being authentic, but then I loose all moral qualms I would have otherwise in applying force (through taxation) on the likes of you. If you don't care if a couple of million people lives or dies (and even suggest the latter would actually be a better outcome), then frankly I don't care for your autonomy either. Class war doesn't look so bad all of the sudden.

[grassroots1]

Except TropicalK is probably not very wealthy. That's the worst part.

[Lightman]

I refuse to pay lip-service to crappy morals in a feel good fest. I'd bet that most of the moral high ground people in this thread have personally donated very little of their own wealth to charitable causes. Talk is cheap, and action unveils preference. The difference between me and the others on this board is that I make no intention to hide my true beliefs.

And you would lose that bet.

[TropicalK]

Cool, more power to you for being authentic, but then I loose all moral qualms I would have otherwise in applying force (through taxation) on the likes of you. If you don't care if a couple of million people lives or dies (and even suggest the latter would actually be a better outcome), then frankly I don't care for your autonomy either. Class war doesn't look so bad all of the sudden.

I get it, you believe that your morals are better than mine. You feel so strongly that you are eager to place the barrel of a gun against my head in order to extract my resources.

Great morals you have there.

Except TropicalK is probably not very wealthy. That's the worst part.

I agree, the worst part is that I'm not wealthier. This provides an even greater incentive to not waste money on out-groups.

[Pants-of-dog]

It worked out really well when the US supported the free market government of Pinochet in Chile.

[grassroots1]

TropicalK what if your mother saw this thread? Your girlfriend (if you have one)? Your friends (if you have them)? How can someone be so callous?

[ThePublicOpinions]

We have a moral responsibility to the third world because there are real people that live in those countries. We should begin by not bombing them. The precautionary principle - first do no harm. We should trade with them. Share technology. One thing that greatly bothers me is how we allow intellectual property to prevent us from getting needed medicine to Africa. We need a great amount of voluntary, freely donated aid in the form of medical supplies, infrastructure development, clean water. Nock writes of how each expanse of state power comes with a corresponding decrease in social power. We blithley assume that the state will solve the issue of the third world for us. This is negligence on our part.

[Rei Murasame]

How are you going to get people like TropicalK to actually go along with your idea? You basically begin by renouncing the ability to coerce anyone, so what happens if everyone just says that they don't have the time or money to bother?

[J Oswald]

I personally do not give a rats ass about all these billions of worthless individuals toiling away. In fact, I believe the world would be a better place if Somalians just died already.

You wouldn't be able to spread Libertarian nonsense on this forum if it weren't for your computer, which I can guarantee you was made from parts assembled in the developing world created from raw materials mined in the developing world by the same "worthless individuals" from the developing world that you're spouting off about.

[pugsville]

How we stuff doing bad stuff.

Supporting Bad regimes, Corruption. Doing the banking of dictators corrupt regimes and selling arms. I'd write off most third world debt as mostly provided under corruption.