And now for what was really said
-
John Carson wrote: Interestingly enough, among the groups who most consistently "wring their hands" over the low level of government foreign aid are the private foreign aid organisations who spend all their time helping others. You miss my point, I wouldn't call someone who steps up to the plate like these people do "hand wringers". I was speaking more to the point of people who expect the government to do these things for them. These people are doers and should be admired. What you don't understand about my point is that I feel that you and I both have a responsibility to help others. There are many charitable causes that do wonderful work for others, and in a situation such as this one, its important that people reach out to one another. Government has a place in this, but the idea people should "let the government take care of it" is shortsighted in my mind. I suspect that you don't disagree with the idea that people should get involved with things like this, but I feel that people should take more responsibility on themselves. Its a matter of citizenship, whether it citizenship in a nation, a world, or the human race. I think that somewhere in all of this you have gotten the impression that I don't think the US should help these people. Nothing is further from the truth, I just feel that charity is a personal matter and should be (well) attended by individuals. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: You miss my point, I wouldn't call someone who steps up to the plate like these people do "hand wringers". I was speaking more to the point of people who expect the government to do these things for them. These people are doers and should be admired. Your point as stated was a general indictment of those who were complaining about a lack of government funding. Not for the first time, you retreat into reasonableness when challenged. Doug Goulden wrote: What you don't understand about my point is that I feel that you and I both have a responsibility to help others. There are many charitable causes that do wonderful work for others, and in a situation such as this one, its important that people reach out to one another. Government has a place in this, but the idea people should "let the government take care of it" is shortsighted in my mind. I suspect that you don't disagree with the idea that people should get involved with things like this, but I feel that people should take more responsibility on themselves. I certainly believe people should be involved personally and have personally donated large sums of money to charities over many years (principally Oxfam and Amnesty International). I am all in favour of people supporting private charities and doing so to an increasing degree. However, the reality is that, absent an irrational anti-government prejudice, there is a strong tendency for government funding to deliver a lot more money than private donations for the reason I explained in an earlier post. Just as a military based on private donations would be much less well funded, so too would be most charitable causes, especially those dealing with national and international issues as opposed to localised ones. That is a basic economic reality that will still be true long after both of us are dead and buried. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Doug Goulden wrote: You miss my point, I wouldn't call someone who steps up to the plate like these people do "hand wringers". I was speaking more to the point of people who expect the government to do these things for them. These people are doers and should be admired. Your point as stated was a general indictment of those who were complaining about a lack of government funding. Not for the first time, you retreat into reasonableness when challenged. Doug Goulden wrote: What you don't understand about my point is that I feel that you and I both have a responsibility to help others. There are many charitable causes that do wonderful work for others, and in a situation such as this one, its important that people reach out to one another. Government has a place in this, but the idea people should "let the government take care of it" is shortsighted in my mind. I suspect that you don't disagree with the idea that people should get involved with things like this, but I feel that people should take more responsibility on themselves. I certainly believe people should be involved personally and have personally donated large sums of money to charities over many years (principally Oxfam and Amnesty International). I am all in favour of people supporting private charities and doing so to an increasing degree. However, the reality is that, absent an irrational anti-government prejudice, there is a strong tendency for government funding to deliver a lot more money than private donations for the reason I explained in an earlier post. Just as a military based on private donations would be much less well funded, so too would be most charitable causes, especially those dealing with national and international issues as opposed to localised ones. That is a basic economic reality that will still be true long after both of us are dead and buried. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
John Carson wrote: Not for the first time, you retreat into reasonableness when challenged. I haven't retreated anywhere John. You merely made an assumption that based on my complaint about this UN official, I didn't support providing help to the people affected by these tsunami's. That was an error on your part. As for being reasonable, I try to be. The difference again that I see between you and I isn't necessarily in the goals so much as the means of achieving it. You believe that government in the form on a "nanny state" is a good thing. I on the other hand feel that government is a best a necessary evil, subject to corruption. But hey if you want to believe that I am irrational or unreasonable because I don't agree with your opinion, feel free. Pretend that I was rude or profane..... it'll make you feel better about yourself I'm sure.:rolleyes: As for your second statement, I didn't say that government shouldn't help people, merely that people should not depend on it.Again the difference being the "nanny state" analogy. As for your supporting charities over the years, good for you, so have I. As for the government supplying more money to charities than private individuals, I think that is a matter of the perception of need. If the public feels that there is a large need they tend to donate to it, while at the same time something that may be less publicized but just as deserving may go unfunded. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
John Carson wrote: Not for the first time, you retreat into reasonableness when challenged. I haven't retreated anywhere John. You merely made an assumption that based on my complaint about this UN official, I didn't support providing help to the people affected by these tsunami's. That was an error on your part. As for being reasonable, I try to be. The difference again that I see between you and I isn't necessarily in the goals so much as the means of achieving it. You believe that government in the form on a "nanny state" is a good thing. I on the other hand feel that government is a best a necessary evil, subject to corruption. But hey if you want to believe that I am irrational or unreasonable because I don't agree with your opinion, feel free. Pretend that I was rude or profane..... it'll make you feel better about yourself I'm sure.:rolleyes: As for your second statement, I didn't say that government shouldn't help people, merely that people should not depend on it.Again the difference being the "nanny state" analogy. As for your supporting charities over the years, good for you, so have I. As for the government supplying more money to charities than private individuals, I think that is a matter of the perception of need. If the public feels that there is a large need they tend to donate to it, while at the same time something that may be less publicized but just as deserving may go unfunded. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I haven't retreated anywhere John. You merely made an assumption that based on my complaint about this UN official, I didn't support providing help to the people affected by these tsunami's. This is wrong on two counts. First, I never believed that you were opposed to providing support to those affected. I always believed you favoured private over government assistance since you made this perfectly clear. (As I have also made clear, I believe this means in practical terms a lower level of assistance.) Second, my reference to you retreating had nothing to do with your comments on the UN official. It was based on your earlier implications that those complaining about the low level of government support tended to not make personal contributions, a claim which you later semi-disowned when I pointed out that private aid organisations had made the sorts of statements complaining about low levels of government aid that you were decrying. Doug Goulden wrote: You believe that government in the form on a "nanny state" is a good thing. Pejorative labelling aside, yes I do. Doug Goulden wrote: As for the government supplying more money to charities than private individuals, I think that is a matter of the perception of need. If the public feels that there is a large need they tend to donate to it, while at the same time something that may be less publicized but just as deserving may go unfunded. This is our fundamental point of difference. It is not simply a matter of the "perception of need". It is also a matter of the perception of what difference an individual can make. When individuals of modest means contribute to hugely expensive undertakings, rational individuals will perceive that their contributions make a negligible difference, which inhibits them from contributing. When the government offers an all-or-nothing deal whereby everyone contributes (if the expenditure policy is adopted) or no-one contributes (if the expenditure policy is not adopted), then this coordinates contributions, so that individuals know that if they contribute then so will everyone else and hence there will be a big difference. This makes agreement to contribute more likely to seem worthwhile. Answer honestly. Do you seriously believe that if military expenditure were funded by private donations, it would be anywhere near as well funded? John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the viciou
-
Doug Goulden wrote: I haven't retreated anywhere John. You merely made an assumption that based on my complaint about this UN official, I didn't support providing help to the people affected by these tsunami's. This is wrong on two counts. First, I never believed that you were opposed to providing support to those affected. I always believed you favoured private over government assistance since you made this perfectly clear. (As I have also made clear, I believe this means in practical terms a lower level of assistance.) Second, my reference to you retreating had nothing to do with your comments on the UN official. It was based on your earlier implications that those complaining about the low level of government support tended to not make personal contributions, a claim which you later semi-disowned when I pointed out that private aid organisations had made the sorts of statements complaining about low levels of government aid that you were decrying. Doug Goulden wrote: You believe that government in the form on a "nanny state" is a good thing. Pejorative labelling aside, yes I do. Doug Goulden wrote: As for the government supplying more money to charities than private individuals, I think that is a matter of the perception of need. If the public feels that there is a large need they tend to donate to it, while at the same time something that may be less publicized but just as deserving may go unfunded. This is our fundamental point of difference. It is not simply a matter of the "perception of need". It is also a matter of the perception of what difference an individual can make. When individuals of modest means contribute to hugely expensive undertakings, rational individuals will perceive that their contributions make a negligible difference, which inhibits them from contributing. When the government offers an all-or-nothing deal whereby everyone contributes (if the expenditure policy is adopted) or no-one contributes (if the expenditure policy is not adopted), then this coordinates contributions, so that individuals know that if they contribute then so will everyone else and hence there will be a big difference. This makes agreement to contribute more likely to seem worthwhile. Answer honestly. Do you seriously believe that if military expenditure were funded by private donations, it would be anywhere near as well funded? John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the viciou
John Carson wrote: Answer honestly. Do you seriously believe that if military expenditure were funded by private donations, it would be anywhere near as well funded? I will always answer honestly, be assured of that.;) No the military would not be as well funded as it is, because many would not see a need to fund it at all. That was part of the reasoning that the US military was inadequately prepare prior to both of the 2 world wars. People saw no real need or threat so there was pressure on the government not to fund it. If you had had a fund raising drive for the military on September 12, 2001 it would have been a success, currently not. John Carson wrote: Second, my reference to you retreating had nothing to do with your comments on the UN official. It was based on your earlier implications that those complaining about the low level of government support tended to not make personal contributions, a claim which you later semi-disowned when I pointed out that private aid organisations had made the sorts of statements complaining about low levels of government aid that you were decrying. I misunderstood your comment then. I didn't mean to imply that all people who called for government funding would not be inclined to help. My point was that many people though fall into the "its not my problem, let someone else take care of it" camp. I on the other hand think that we should all try to reach out and help those around us and those farther away (I realize you aren't discouraging this, I merely think there are to many people who don't participate). John Carson wrote: When individuals of modest means contribute to hugely expensive undertakings, rational individuals will perceive that their contributions make a negligible difference, which inhibits them from contributing. When the government offers an all-or-nothing deal whereby everyone contributes (if the expenditure policy is adopted) or no-one contributes (if the expenditure policy is not adopted), then this coordinates contributions, so that individuals know that if they contribute then so will everyone else and hence there will be a big difference. This makes agreement to contribute more likely to seem worthwhile. I see your point, again though I feel people need to step up and try. I was involved in an adult literacy program a while ago, that received no public funding, and was very successful. The effort was driven by people who wanted to reach out and ma
-
John Carson wrote: Answer honestly. Do you seriously believe that if military expenditure were funded by private donations, it would be anywhere near as well funded? I will always answer honestly, be assured of that.;) No the military would not be as well funded as it is, because many would not see a need to fund it at all. That was part of the reasoning that the US military was inadequately prepare prior to both of the 2 world wars. People saw no real need or threat so there was pressure on the government not to fund it. If you had had a fund raising drive for the military on September 12, 2001 it would have been a success, currently not. John Carson wrote: Second, my reference to you retreating had nothing to do with your comments on the UN official. It was based on your earlier implications that those complaining about the low level of government support tended to not make personal contributions, a claim which you later semi-disowned when I pointed out that private aid organisations had made the sorts of statements complaining about low levels of government aid that you were decrying. I misunderstood your comment then. I didn't mean to imply that all people who called for government funding would not be inclined to help. My point was that many people though fall into the "its not my problem, let someone else take care of it" camp. I on the other hand think that we should all try to reach out and help those around us and those farther away (I realize you aren't discouraging this, I merely think there are to many people who don't participate). John Carson wrote: When individuals of modest means contribute to hugely expensive undertakings, rational individuals will perceive that their contributions make a negligible difference, which inhibits them from contributing. When the government offers an all-or-nothing deal whereby everyone contributes (if the expenditure policy is adopted) or no-one contributes (if the expenditure policy is not adopted), then this coordinates contributions, so that individuals know that if they contribute then so will everyone else and hence there will be a big difference. This makes agreement to contribute more likely to seem worthwhile. I see your point, again though I feel people need to step up and try. I was involved in an adult literacy program a while ago, that received no public funding, and was very successful. The effort was driven by people who wanted to reach out and ma
Doug Goulden wrote: NGO's such as Amnesty aren't completely dependent on a government to set them up or run them. I think you could even make the arguement that they are more effective because they are independent. Amnesty International in fact has a policy of never accepting government funding precisely so that its advocacy positions will never be compromised by funding considerations. Privately funded initiatives play an indispensable role in promoting both progress and freedom. On that much I think we can agree. regards John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde