I still missed you, Tettleton.

"The starving people are simply a vehicle for their agenda."

What is this agenda? Enlighten me.

Another argument in the vague appeal to "social justice."
You have something that I don't have, health care/a job/own a home, and that isn't fair. We should all have the same things. I have a right to those items.

Again this argument completely ignores why one person owns a home and another doesn't.
One denied themselves, saved money, and lived within their means, while the other spent their money, didn't save, and went into debt.
Of course you will meet a blitzkrieg of excuses trying to declare this logic invalid and claiming everyone saves a lives within their means.

Or the classic argument that "I can't afford this." When the truth is they refuse to adjust their expectations to pay for what they want.

Also the fallacy that my misfortune is yours as well.
I have an illness or misfortune that is not my fault so you must share my burden.
They never want to go into the cause of their illness or misfortune. That is never important. The only focus is that they have a right to demand you share their burden.
No sense of responsibility. No sense of personal dignity.
If I can't climb any higher because of my misfortune or illness no one should.

Exactly, the people are dying in Africa because they don't work hard enough. Hitting the nail on the head once again tettie.

Why do you spurn me, baby? I only want your LOVE.

The people are dying in Africa because there is not enough food for everyone. Better them then me.

I unmuted you to see if you changed. Glad to see you're still a dumbass. They're starving in East Africa because of the desertification of the area. Its in a worse drought than Texas. Alright, back to the mute list you go!

TC, I miss yoooooou please talk to meeeeee

Goldfinger: But what caused said desertification? Deserts don't just magically appear over night, well your christian (correct me if I am wrong) so you might think God does it (even if he does, it means God doesn't want them to have food, so no food they shall have).

But either way:if it doesn't we have to ask what caused it. The answer was the people on the land. The didn't farm properly and desertification happened as a result. If Ethiopia let European investors in, who would have helped teach the local farmers how to slow down desertification then this wouldn't be an issue right now.

@Pres: I think TC muted you...

BABY COME BACK
DOOO DO DO DO DOOO
ANY KIND OF FOOL
COULD
SEE
THERE WAS SOMETHING IN
EVERYTHING ABOOOUT YOOOOU
BABY COME BACK
DOOO DO DO DO DOOO
YOU CAN BLAME IT ALL
ON
ME
I WAS WRONG
AND I JUST CAN'T LIVE WITHOOOOUT YOOOOU

@Fasces: Even if you believe that (and hey, why not? I'm willing to believe it might be true, I don't really know), the fundamental question is "should people suffer for the mistakes of X years ago?" I'm all for people suffering for their own mistakes (bankruptcy, et al), but other people's?

I mean, these people of Ethopia were likely born into a pretty bad economic situation. The reason people don't like "everyone do the best you can" capitalism is that some people start with a handicap. People inherently dislike inequality when they suffer for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIRZVaJX5M&hd=1

You obviously don't understand how the economy/world works, oh wait, should I just attack him for being a big government advocate? Oh I don't know, HELP ME TETTIE!!!

*tittie

But regardless they still have to account for the most basic of economic questions. Scarcity, the fact is, there are only a finite amount of resources (such as food) around, so we have to choose the best way to allocate it.

When given the choice between Educated Americans and uneducated Ethiopians, economists would seldom choose Ethiopia.


For example, Ethiopia is a bad example because it is their ancestors problems.

However lets take Hurricane Hazel for example. In the last 60 years, only one Hurricane has ever hit Toronto, therefore it would be unreasonable to assume that the Canadian government would spend billions of dollars protecting the city from Hurricanes, unlike cities across the gulf of Mexico that get hit annually.

However it still hit us, and caused $1,130,000,000 of damage. Could we reasonable say it wasn't our fault? Was it our fault that we didn't prepare for a hurricane simply because one hadn't hit us before. Given that it was a fluke of nature, something completely unpredictable it wasn't our fault at all.

However one fact still remains, $1.13 billion of damage was done, and someone has to pay it. So who should pay it? Those directly effected by the hurricane, or those on the otherside of the world?

I am so far against big government that I refuse to capitalise the letter 'g' when it starts a sentence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxlZXaopWHw

I think we should get off the topic of trivial things like people around the world dying of starvation and easily curable diseases and get onto the far more pressuring issue. I want to know, Can ANYONE defend socialism?

@Fasces - Yep, absolutely. Who pays it under an anarchist capitalist state? I imagine it's just the people affected. Who pays for it under our current system? Everyone. So the answer is: I like the first option when it doesn't affect me; and the second when it does :)

Tettie, President Eden will never give you up. He will never let you down.

this seems like a common sense q&a

if you don't want to take the risk of getting wiped out, don't live on the coast

BUT HE TURNED AROUND AND HURT MEEEEEEEEE

Exactly, these completely stupid marxists enjoy all their big government when THEY suffer because of their own laziness, but when they have to pay the bill they cry like babies. Absolute hypocrites.

"Stupid Marxist suffering" is a triple redundancy, by the way.

you can't pick and choose based on the situation.

As the leader of a country, say America for instance, refuse to give any aid to Japan during their Earthquake and then when a hurricane deals massive damage to their coast expect Japan to give them aid.

Your a diplomat, so you should know the political importance of keeping your decisions consistent.

So the question is, do you make everyone pay which in some cases creates Deadweight loss?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

Or do you make only those effected and charities pay, giving unfair disadvantages to a select few who were in no way behind their misfortune.

Lol, these stupid communists can't even speak English. Go back to Mexico!

Yeah, go back to Che Guevara in Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's a theory that's something like "The Veil of Ignorance", which says something along the lines of: how would people set up an ideal economic system if they had no idea if they were stronger, smarter, healthier, etc. than anyone else; that is, if they don't know if they're the priveledged or the handicapped?

People who undertake this experiment tend to negotiate strongly for societies that are much more equal than current societies, which goes to show that people a) are risk averse (no shock there) and b) can and do select systems that suit them at any given time.