Government Foreign Aid

=== FINAL REBUTTAL === PRO ends the debate in the same vein he began it, as the entirety of his side of the debate was an emotive argument. In PRO's mind the United States ought to give aid, especially in emergencies, simply on the notion that certain nations cannot help themselves. He cites the Haiti earthquake as an example, but neglects to give any compelling reasons why the U.S. "ought" to involve themselves beyond some misplaced sense of civic duty. He goes on to involve my use of the Coast Guard as why it is important. What PRO may not know, however, is that I was at ground zero because I was in the Coast Guard during that time. In fact, my cutter, the CGC Tahoma, was the second military unit to arrive on scene. I do not at all discount that Haiti is poor. I do not discount that those people were in need. I don't discount that the Haitian government is extremely corrupt. What I do discount is that the United States government has an obligation to help those in need. But allow me to summarize, again, my reasons for why it is not in the best interest of the government to engage in humanitarian missions: * The U.S. government is nearly insolvent. It cannot afford to use tax dollars to help other nations. * Private donations far exceed that which the government has ever supplied. By lowering taxes, people are better able to use their own funds (actual charity) to give to those in need. * Private donations allow for more interpersonal contact, where funds can be directly given to those in need, versus combating fraud, waste, and abuse. It cuts the middleman out. * Entangling alliances creates an atmosphere of favoritism among nations -- a very dangerous precedent to set. * As macabre as it might sound, natural disasters, famine, pestilence, warfare, etc keep numbers down. This is simply a fact of life, not a moral question. While it is sad that people die, it doesn't change that fact. Death is absolutely necessary for life to continue. * Taxation of this kind supports theft and redistribution of wealth, wealth that is not theirs to begin with. PRO then asserts "There is little evidence that removing foreign aid would even effectively solve its largest issues. So to assert that foreign aid is pushing America off the cliff is a bit of a strech, to put it lightly." PRO, however, misunderstands my analogy. My analogy is in reference to how one satisfies one moral without realizing it has to break another one in the process. Suppose someone is falling off of a cliff. I feel the obligatory response is to save them. I achieve this moral victory by pushing someone else off of the cliff to break the other individuals fall. I have now sacrificed one life in defense of another. I have thereby broken one moral in order to satisfy the other, thus invalidating the original moral. This applies to the burgeoning crisis in America. We have homeless, we have imperiled people, we have a broken system. Until we can get our own house in order, we are in no position to help others unless by the freewill of the private citizen. The point is that they have the choice to do what they want with their money. The government's money is really the People's. And what do they do with money the People's money? The United States funded the Muhajideen, which are today elements of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda, supporting their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The expulsion of the Soviets out of Afghanistan worked, from a strategic point of view, however, today we see the unintended consequence of just such a strategic maneuver, as we ourselves fight the same warriors we supported two decades ago. Similarly, the U.S. government supported Iraq in their bloody 10-year war against Iran. Though we treated Iraq as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), we have now fought two wars against them. We are still diplomatically in dire straits with Iran, and have been mired down on two separate fronts, facing enemies we once funded militarily. We now have more enemies than ever before because those we befriended objected to our foreign national policy. In essence the United States has manufactured its own enemies, and inflamed anti-west propaganda. Unquestionably it is more righteous to live at peace, but peace is reciprocal. Therefore the applicable moral question is whether or not we should involve ourselves in the affairs of other countries as deeply as we do, if at all. For instance, juxtaposing the United States and a nation like Switzerland highlights some very poignant disparities. Switzerland has not fought any wars since 1815, a timeline of peace unheard of by today's standards. A little known fact is that Nazi-Germany drafted war plans for the invasion of Switzerland, but could not allocate enough resources to accomplish their objective before their dissolution, as they were fighting on two fronts – England and America in the West and Russia in the East. In contrast with Swiss foreign policy, the United States has adopted a policy of preemptive attack. Perception is often more important than reality, because if your intentions are not well understood, then what difference does it make if the inevitable solution is one in the same? Many in favor of the preemptive position claim that America is not an occupier, but rather a liberator. Or is this a non-sequitur or a straw man used bolster support for an otherwise unpopular occupation in the interest of "spreading democracy?" Or have we forgotten that democracy is not supposed to be a force, it is supposed to be a choice, lest it contradict itself? And what of U.S. imperialism? The strategy behind permanent bases are for the expressed purposes of refueling, re-supplying forward deployed units, and extending the military reach, power, and influence of the United States. Fiscal irresponsibility, however, has allowed the United States to indebt itself past $12 trillion dollars. [1] Coupling these facts with the recent unpopularity of bank, auto makers, and corporate bail-outs, makes even less sense when it is done overseas. Despite our economic travails, we have an astonishing 144 bases abroad, manned by over 200,000 troops. Some military strategists view these bases abroad as being indispensably vital to international stability, but with the dissolution of the Cold War, virtually every nation, except the United States, is reducing their numbers. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that global military expenditures have dropped by one third: from $1.1 trillion in the late 1980s to $740 billion in 1997. [2] Some of the 200,000 military personnel in 144 nations do perform legitimate missions, such as protecting U.S. embassies and collecting intelligence, but the vast majority do not fall into this category as none of the 144 bases are embassies – they are military posts. Of these, some have an extraordinarily high number of bases and troops. There are already 27 bases in Iraq, 21 in Japan, 18 in Germany, and 32 in South Korea. What incentive does, say, the South Korean military have to fight its own wars when the United States has embedded its troops inside South Korean borders? What kind of message is this sending to the world, all the while the US is claiming this is not about occupying but liberating? === CLOSING ARGUMENTS === PRO did not even attempt to engage the bulk of my arguments. His failure to challenge my arguments is very disheartening. I have given countless, well-sourced examples for why it is not in the best interest for the United States, or governments in general, to engage in any kind of foreign aid projects. I thank my opponent and the voters for the opportunity to speak about such an important topic. === SOURCES === 1. http://www.cbsnews.com... 2. http://www.cato.org...