Government Foreign Aid

RESOLUTION: Foreign Aid provided from a government, while well-intentioned, has more negative consequences than it does produce positive ones. === CLARIFICATION === Because I am taking the CON position, I am declaring myself to be against government foreign aid in a general and broad sense -- that is, I am against my government giving foreign aid to any other nation, regardless if they are an ally or considered a friendly nation. Foreign aid is inclusive to money, supplies, subsistence, arms and weaponry, etc. Or has Thomas Jefferson elucidated, "... peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." That is not to say that I have any objections towards private entities who, of their own accord, feel compelled to give charitable donations to those they deem worthy of the assistance. Private entities can do what they wish with their money. I am against government giving aid and will list all my reasons in the coming rounds. The title of the debate is left intentionally vague so that all reasons in favor or against government foreign aid can be utilized, be it from a moral perspective, a pragmatic perspective, or any variation to support why it is or isn't in a nations best interest to give foreign aid. I look forward to debating whomever opts to take up my challenge. __________________________________________________________________________________________ P1. The Moral Argument In an essay entitled "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," writer Peter Singer argued that we, being in an affluent society, are morally obligated to give humanitarian aid. From a purely moral perspective, perhaps he is right. The only valid and applicable questions then, are, to whom are the proposed funds allocated and from whom are they extracted? Singer believes that it is the moral responsibility of the citizens of the United States, collectively, to give to those less fortunate via taxes. "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it." [1] If, however, we pay for those services through a compulsory tax, what have we as individuals done morally? All we have done is paid our taxes in accordance with the tax code. What great virtue has thereby been satisfied in doing something we are legally obligated to do? In a nation which values individual choice, another moral imperative is jeopardized in the process of alleviating the other – namely, forced giving. Instead it would be more prudent, equitable, and in keeping with the spirit of giving, to allow individuals to give of their own volition. Is the method of "charity" through taxes actually indicative of giving, or is it simply taking and redistributing wealth? If indeed it is taking, it is merely substituting one moral [giving] at the expense of another moral [taking]. Because one moral is being substituted for the sake of the other, Singer's own thesis serves to be the very noose he hangs himself with. Statistically, one also needs to question whether or not this method is counterproductive; is this loose form of "charity" actually at the cost of another? P2. Argument in defense of private charity FACT: The private, charitable donations of United States citizens attribute the largest amount of foreign aid in the world, surpassing even the U.S. government. Of the $122.8 billion dollars spent on foreign aid, $95.5 billion was given by private donation, accounting for 79% of the total charity. [2] However, if many citizens assume the U.S. government will help those in need, how many others simply do not bother giving private donations at all, or in a reduced amount, because they are [falsely] relying on the government to do their charity for them? If the average American feels sanctimonious because they paid their taxes (which they are legally obligated to do), versus actually donating their time and money, I would seriously question the calibration of their moral compass. What then are some arguments in favor of private charity? Private charity involves more interpersonal contact, where the aid is directly given to those in need, allowing funds to be spent more economically and more effectively. When governments act as middlemen, getting in between the giver and the receiver, there is almost always an inherent waste and mismanagement of funds. Waste and fraud is doubled when those funds are taken from citizens represented by the United States government and given to foreign governments for distribution to the needy. "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." -- George Washington [3] === SOURCES === 1. http://www.utilitarian.net... 2. http://www.america.gov... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...