4chan archive /r9k/ (index)
similar threads
2012-09-15 01:48 3772761 Anonymous (rich-man-poor-man.jpg 474x480 33kB)
Do we as a developed society have an obligation to help third world countries overcome poverty, malnutrition, etc? Why/why not? No bullshit about moralfags or lelsoedgyfags. I want your honest opinions.

1 min later 3772762 Anonymous
If you ignore morality then there's certainly no obligation. However there is profit to be had in doing so.

3 min later 3772769 Anonymous
we have no obligation but if we have the resources and can provide a high standard of living in our respective countries and still have money to blow then it would be only natural to help out less fortunate countries but before we go out to do that we should fix our own economies, solve our homeless and poverty problems

3 min later 3772771 Anonymous
Honestly, it depends. Some times these countries are our faults and we sold them off to the highest bidder when colonialism ended. Sometimes its our corporations which employ the people in terrible conditions. And sometimes (especially in times of natural disaster) they deserve our help especially. But sometimes the countries do it to themselves. I personally think the crisis in Africa is the Catholic Church's fault but thats neither here nor there.

4 min later 3772774 Anonymous
>>3772762 Is there a moral obligation? What if there is no profit? There's not much we can gain from say African countries.

6 min later 3772778 Anonymous
No we don't. True that colonialism fucked Africa and pals over rather thoroughly, but it's not my problem. I wasn't there in 1892 or anything, and a-rabs and blacks should deal with their problems instead of flocking over to west in search of "better life" they don't even deserve.

6 min later 3772779 Anonymous
>>3772774 We could gain cheap labour but Africa is just too damn uncivilised and uneducated

6 min later 3772780 Anonymous
Its the least us white devils could do after completely ruining all those beautiful countries. Maybe the US should just give all of our money to a country that could actually do good with it, like Africa or Israel

6 min later 3772782 Anonymous
>>3772779 >We could gain cheap labour Tried that once, blacks are still complaining about it

8 min later 3772786 Anonymous
>>3772780 >implying africa is a country

8 min later 3772787 Anonymous
It benefits everyone to get rid of poverty-stricken third world countries. So yes. For a better world for everyone.

8 min later 3772789 Anonymous
Yes because its my country (England) that fucked over a lot of places during the times of slavery, so politicians should help in some sustainable way. Im not saying regular people should donate to charities though, fuck that.

11 min later 3772798 Anonymous
>>3772787 But more rich countries means less cheap and less available resources for developed countries. Where's the benefit in that?

12 min later 3772799 Anonymous (Clement-Attlee-005.jpg 460x276 19kB)
>>3772789 I hate being preached to over money, especially by rich comedians and musicians. Fuck Live Aid, fuck Comic Relief, fuck Children in Need. Pay your taxes before preaching to us, bastards.

13 min later 3772805 Anonymous
>>3772789 You've got it all wrong. Any help provided should be voluntary via charity. Governments should not be taxing the people in order to fund third-world aid. If you want to help, you can donate your time, money, and resources willingly. Do not, however, force others who may not want to help into doing so via taxation.

14 min later 3772808 Anonymous
>>3772789 >politicians should help in some sustainable way. Im not saying regular people should donate to charities though, fuck that. So in your opinion it's OK for tax payer money which is taken without consent to be given away to others. But it's wrong for people to voluntarily donate to help others? What type of fucked up world view is that?

14 min later 3772809 Anonymous
>>3772805 >tax >being about want How do I into society

15 min later 3772812 Anonymous
>>3772808 I'm rich and have ripped people off for my millions. I don't WANT to pay any taxes at all. Is it cool if I don't? kthx

16 min later 3772815 Anonymous
>>3772809 Congratulations, you've completely missed the context. I'm not against all taxation. However, I am against taxing people to raise money in order to help other nations. A government has an obligation to its citizens, not to citizens of another state.

17 min later 3772816 Anonymous
>>3772798 the benefit is in everybody's living standards across the world will be better and work wont be outsourced to cheaper thrid world countries

18 min later 3772822 Anonymous
>>3772812 >I'm rich and have ripped people off for my millions. Everyone in the UK hasn't 'ripped off others through'. And the social contract of taxation is that the wealth taxed will be used to support and defend the nation. Giving it away to others breaks that contract. The UK also gives money away to countries like India. Why the fuck?

18 min later 3772823 Anonymous
>>3772815 I just think it beats charity where rich, tax-dodging celebrities get to tell working class people that THEY should give all their money to charity. Fucking Bono, man.

20 min later 3772828 Anonymous
the exploitation of third world countries is, currently, the only reason "developed" societies exist.

20 min later 3772829 Anonymous
i dont think we should help them as much as we do i work have a contract with department of human services in Melbourne as a security guard/concierge sort of thing in some of the commission flats they are full of retarded African niggers, Vietnamese and aboriginals. they leech off the government like they get almost everything for free. most of them just cause disorder and barely any of them work and the ones that do are usually respectable normal people when you meet them. full of stupid niggers and aboriginals who leech off the government and dont give anything back. plus alot of them just cause disorder. bearly any of them work, and the ones that do are usually nice sensible people when you meet them. (compared to the rest of them anyway) my tax money is going to supporting a bunch of lazy niggers, drug dealers and alchos. they should be left in their own country to deal with there own retardedness, why should we have to deal with them? We Australians don't deserve this bullshit.

21 min later 3772831 Anonymous
>>3772805 >>3772805 >>3772805 >>3772805 THIS foreign aid pushes out local farmers and suppliers as they cannot compete with what is essentially 'free' food, we don't give them a chance to develop, then there's tariffs on goods which ruin any chance they may have of exporting their goods. >>3772815 >i'm not against all taxation oooh close, but you let yourself down there after such a strong start

22 min later 3772838 Anonymous
>>3772789 >implying England didn't fix as much as we broke >implying we haven't been being forced to pay for colonialism since at least the 50s yeah nah, I have no feeling of obligation towards other countries because of our past. I think we should help them, hell we should really do more than just throw money at them, we should be sending professionals and materials over to start fixing them. I believe this partly because I get great satisfaction from helping other people, and deep down I'm still an imperialist who thinks we should run the world, and who would want to run a world that's still partially broken?

22 min later 3772839 Anonymous
>>3772831 >Being a libertarian Did you cry when you were told ro share your toys?

23 min later 3772841 Anonymous
>>3772829 sorry if that was a bother to read im a bit drunk. but even though im drunk i dont go around causing problems like the fuckin aboriginals.

24 min later 3772846 Anonymous
>>3772823 You're right. It is irritating when rich celebrities tell non-rich people to give their money to charities. However, you are not obligated to do so simply because somebody asked you to, or even demanded that you do. They have no legal power over you and you don't have to give anything if you don't want to or cannot afford to do so. If your tax monies weren't being spent helping other nations, to whom your government has no obligation, they could be spent solving problems at home (ideally). It's about freedom of choice. You shouldn't have to pay to help other nations if you don't want to.

24 min later 3772851 Anonymous
>>3772839 not a libertarian. at least i don't think so, we don't have that word over here (uk), aren't they essentially minarchists? the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist.... is about 6 months.

28 min later 3772867 Anonymous (3235w4.jpg 620x349 30kB)
>>3772846 >Monies >>3772851 I'm British too, I'm just used to arguing with Americans about politics. Minarchist sounds about right, but I'm not too into anarchy, don't know all the terminology. Democratic Socialist Masterrace.

31 min later 3772887 eeyore
America doesn't even help its own country out but we help others.

32 min later 3772891 Anonymous
>>3772867 ah, yeah i'm familiar with libertarians, ron paul etc but they still believe in the state being necessary. the first post i quoted had the brilliant line >Do not, however, force others who may not want to help into doing so via taxation. can't this apply to everything tax based? all tax is force/theft, just try not paying and see what happpens to you. and what if i don't want to fund the nhs, or wars or 'the roads'. i reckon it'd be done much much more efficiently by a private company that doesnt point guns

34 min later 3772897 Anonymous
>>3772829 I feels you brah. http://www.smh.com.au/national/welfare-card-pays-out-on-poor-20110806-1igid.html >WHY CAN'T WE SPEND OUR DOLE ON PORN AND BOOZE!?!?!?!?

35 min later 3772901 Anonymous
>>3772867 >not authoritarian socialist >not wanting glorious oligarchic dictatorship of people dedicated to their work, rather than democratic jobsworths and filchers man, I hate our democratic system. there has to be a middle way between the two that combines the stability, long sightedness and solidity of a dictatorship with the accountability and freedom of a democracy.

36 min later 3772903 Anonymous
>>3772891 Don't knock the NHS. Its brilliant, we should all be thankful for it. Private companies are worse than government funded-things. Look at American healthcare or post-privatised transport. They want to do everything for the lowest possible price, at the lowest bar for acceptability, whilst creating only a temporary fix. Some things need decent investment and support by society.

38 min later 3772907 Anonymous
>>3772891 >privately run public services >good quality public services choose 1 and only 1, that's how it works. privately run public services are just inferior, and we've already given the money grubbing arseholes too much ground.

39 min later 3772911 Anonymous
>>3772891 The difference is when taxes are spent to the benefit of the society being taxed. Removing money from society and spending it to benefit foreign nations is unjust.

41 min later 3772917 Anonymous (africa_oil.jpg 400x333 18kB)
>>3772774 >implying the Congo isn't the richest country in the world in terms of resources

42 min later 3772921 Anonymous
>>3772780 Niggers ruined themselves, they sold each other off to the Arabs and the Jews. The quicker they get phased out and we can use their land/resources the better. Asians proved it's not a race or a cultural issue, that nig nogs only have themselves to blame for the position they are in but we are so superior in every way that our moral superiority comes out from pitying them so much we see the need to save them. There is no saving them, we have tried oh so many times. If Asians can recover then why can't they ? Their brains did not evolve, they still have the mind of Apes and should be treated as such.

44 min later 3772930 Anonymous
Why do niggers bitch so much about Slavery? The Irish and Italians got it just as bad if not worse but you never see them bitch about it, they moved on with their lives and didn't let it consume them like nig nogs.

46 min later 3772941 Anonymous
>>3772903 but look at private healthcare in the UK, far superior to that of what the NHS provides. i'd argue that the reason for the fucked up US private healthcare companies is the deep level of involvement their government has. the merging of state and corporation is what causes this perception of poor private services as it removes all accountability from those running the company. a truly free market would provide much better services, there would be no barriers to entry in to a market amongst a host of other things. for those interested i'm a pretty keen follower of Stefan Molyneux, he delivers this stuff much better than i could ever hope to.

47 min later 3772947 BRIAR reply
>>3772887 America hasn't got the money to help their people.. since being in debt to China. Isn't china rich and also a bit of a commi country so it has the capacity/money to help its people which is sad because there alot of very poor places in china still

48 min later 3772952 Anonymous
>>3772930 mate, the irish bitch about that whole potato shit way too much still, there were worse famines, more preventable famines, it wasn't some landowner/english conspiracy to destroy them, other parts of the uk were hit by the very same famine, but they persist in lying to themselves that it was somehow this massive injustice against them specifically that they should all rally around. they can bitch and cry as much as they like, but the historical facts just don't bear out most of the so called "oppressed minorities" claims.

48 min later 3772956 Anonymous
>developed societies you mean the biggest thieves on the planet right op?

51 min later 3772966 Anonymous
>>3772941 Of course private healthcare is going to be better when they are needing to take people away from the public option. If there was a five minute waiting list, they'd make sure it was three minutes. Doesn't matter how good a public service is, there will always be a private one to beat it, at a reasonable rate to get people to buy it. However if its private exclusive, they will give a subpar bottom rate for the peasants and overcharge the better services for the rich. Really, the first option is clearly the superior one. Just because taxis exist, doesn't mean we should stop the busses.

51 min later 3772967 eeyore
>>3772947 America would have the money if CEOs and other derps weren't sitting on vast amounts of money doing absolutely fuckall.

52 min later 3772970 Anonymous
>>3772956 they stole before anyone else would 90% of humans will abuse their power when they are 100% sure there will be no consequences

52 min later 3772973 Anonymous
>>3772941 but that's just wrong, no matter who delivers it. private healthcare is good in the UK because it is expensive, and therefore caters to a high standard due to high rates. The only reason they can do this is because they do not have to provide for everyone, just those with the money and inclination to go private. A free market would not magically make the private sector better, if anything it would remove all accountability and make things worse.

58 min later 3772996 Anonymous
>>3772970 there were many times when the East could have overtaken the West, but they stopped for stupid reasons every time.

1 hours later 3773066 Anonymous
>>3772930 because people like you exist. I guarantee that if you off yourself black people all around the work will immediately fall in line. It's up to you, anon. I'm sure your mommy has some pills you can go swallow.

1 hours later 3773070 Anonymous
Society should feel some level of obligation given that anywhere from decades to centuries ago, western society effectively completely fucked over entire nations of people, stole and continue to control their resources, and basically treated them with zero respect. I know that none of us personally are directly responsible for this, but you should own up to the fact that the majority of things you take for granted like minerals and textiles and even oil from certain areas are probably only in your hands due to a whole lot of people getting royally fucked over. Think of it this way - people on /r9k/ believe they have suffered mental damage and that their lives are ruined due to a number of years being bullied at school. Multiply that by decades and you can see why entire generations of people are fucked.

1 hours later 3773074 Anonymous
>>3772917 The problem with developing it, even once it's safe to do so, is that it's one of the few remaining rainforests on the planet. The Congo is the Amazon of the next half century. Can we really afford to lose that much of our global oxygen generator?

1 hours later 3773100 Anonymous
id rather spend my money on anal toys

1 hours later 3773190 Anonymous
>>3773074 >Can we really afford to lose that much of our global oxygen generator? Yes. The majority of oxygen generation comes from plankton. The rest comes from grass and shrubs. Forests have poor oxygen generation for the land area they use.

3 hours later 3773736 Anonymous
>>3773190 it's more than just that, of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

1.986 0.154