Government Foreign Aid

Judging by the quality of PRO's writing abilities, I trust this will make for an excellent debate. === REBUTTALS === PRO begins the rebuttal with a few clarifications and a quote by Christine Korsgaard. She was quoted as stating, "the moral law is the ultimate source of justification. .. Hence, all that is necessary to prove that governments SHOULD give foreign aid, is the question of whether or not it is the moral and ethical course of action. Whether or not the action benefits or even puts the giving nation at a disadvantage is of lesser importance, as morality is the ultimate source of justification. " I respectfully beg to differ with Korsgaard. Though it is often viewed, both domestically and internationally, as an endless pool of revenue and resources, the United States is not a pit of money. Its government cannot economically support the weight of the world without bankrupting itself. If the rescuer needs rescuing then everyone is lost. Consider the following analogy: If the United States Coast Guard sent a rescue boat to help imperiled Haitians floundering off the Straits of Florida, but the rescuers ship was already filled to capacity, should they continue to pile survivors onto the deck, endangering the lives of everyone? If the vessel capsizes because the rescuers failed to recognize the current state of their ship, does it not nullify the rescue attempt? If the rescuers end up in need of help, then not only will those originally in need drown, but those in need have increased because the rescuer too need rescuing, thus invalidating the moral itself. In this way, the United States government cannot be burdened by a moral principle that will invariably violate other moral principles in the process. Pragmatic reasons aside, the moral of endangering oneself for the good of none could be considered itself a moral tragedy of the highest order. PRO then argues that "while it is true that the citizens aren't really giving, we must acknowlede that the government IS. " I suspect that the government is not providing charity at all, rather it has become the status quo for affluent nations to do so as a gesture of solidarity. Why suspect it? Please note how selective the U. S. when it comes to it's "charities. " Nations that are the poorest often receive the least amount of aid, whereas other nations that are quite well off often receive more. If it were merely a matter of have's and have not's under the pretense that it's purely philanthropic, then reasonably PRO should expect the poorest of the poor to receive the most in aid. As you can see, they do not. [1] I submit that the U. S. generally acts in a manner to uphold an image under the misguided pretense of morality and/or is tantamount to special favors and bribes as a strategic investment, i. e. "I do for you / you do for me. " Case in point: Darfur is one of the poorest, war torn places on earth. Yet the US involvement in Darfur, either militarily or philanthropically, is negligible in comparison to the aid given to nations who do not need assistance like, for instance, Pakistan -- a nation that receives the 2nd largest amount of foreign aid and one who has been wishy-washy, at best, with being forthcoming. If what PRO alleges is true, then (s)he must be able to logically explain away such a discrepancy if it's purely done for moral reasons. [2] PRO then mischaracterizes my position by stating that I conceded that government Foreign Aid is moral. I have done no such thing. At most, I conceded the issue that it's designed to APPEAR to be done under moral pretenses, but that they sacrifice other morals in the process, thus invalidating it. If I said that I pushed one kid off of a cliff in order to save one, one could argue that I did so under moral pretenses. But have I not sacrificed one moral for another in the process? In short, PRO is either being disingenuous by playing a game of semantics or (s)he is simply confused. Either way, PRO's accusations are totally unfounded and I trust the reader will come to the same conclusion. === THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT === Recently there have been a number of allegations and scandals between the US and countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq for misappropriation of funds. [3] Rather than the funds actually going to those in-need, often the money goes unaccounted for. Meanwhile, foreign palaces curiously remain opulent, and their heads-of-state well fed. Not only does this invalidate the premise of state-sponsored aid, but it also serves to undermine Americans as well. Here at home, we continue to watch critical infrastructure become aged and dilapidated. The economic implosion of Detroit, once the 4th largest city in America (now the 11th due to a mass exodus), lends credence, if nothing else, to a misguided principle of giving to others when our own are in need. The CATO Institute, a prominent Washington-based think tank, argues that government-run foreign aid produces far less than what is gained by it, regardless of how well-intentioned the effort might be. They allege that this disservice is tantamount to economic imperialism which fosters foreign dependency, and it's difficult not to come to the same conclusion. The nation of Tanzania is cited as a prime example. Since 1970, Tanzania has received more foreign aid than any other nation on earth, yet it is still the 3rd poorest nation according to the Human Development Index. [4] In other words, not only has it not benefited the masses, but it has actually hindered their abilities by expecting aid. .. and the U. S. are the enablers. "By providing a seemingly endless credit line to governments regardless of their policies, AID effectively discourages governments from learning from and correcting their mistakes. Giving some Third World governments perpetual assistance is about as humanitarian as giving an alcoholic the key to a brewery. Good intentions are no excuse for helping to underwrite an individual's--or a country's-- self-destruction. " -- James Bovard Monetary subsistence does not encapsulate the bulk of U. S. foreign involvement. Military aid, in the form of training and various weaponry, has proven itself disastrous time and again. The Central Intelligence Agency has coined a phrase to summarize the unintended consequences of funding proxy wars -- "Blowback". [5] The term blowback originally referred to a shooter being hurt by his own weapon; when the term is used by the CIA it denotes the violent consequences of covert operations; when an indigenous population turns on the country once supporting them. Iran, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, the Sandinistas in the Nicaraguan Civil War, are all examples of the U. S. supporting, training, and arming a future enemy. === CONCLUDING REMARKS === As we can see, government foreign aid has dire consequences, irrespective of how well-intentioned it might be. The United States taxpayer simply cannot afford to pay for all the people of the world, let alone all impoverished people, especially when the U. S. government cannot even balance its own checkbook. The U. S. government is playing a dangerous game with the safety and security of its own people, and it is high time they cease and desist before the nation is completely insolvent. I thank you for your time and attention. === SOURCES === 1. . http://www.census.gov... 2. . http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com... 3. . http://www.timesonline.co.uk... 4. . http://www.cato.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://www.cbsnews.com...