Western governments to sacrifice even more money on developing countries

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is preparing to spend £40m of taxpayers’ money plus £5m a year on research into malaria treatments and vaccines in the developing world.

 

http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=9769780

 

With the NHS millions and millions of pounds in debt, is this really where the government’s priority should be?

 

Apparently the US is also committing $5bn to the cause.  Where is this money coming from?

 

One million people die from Malaria every year, so the charitable act of free people to help others is indeed a commendable one.  But the enormous sums of money being invested into other countries is at the non-voluntary expense of the taxpayers of those countries; countries whose economy is already faltering; the US is in great financial turmoil and Britain is on the brink of recession.  So what do our altruistic governments decide to do?: hand over millions or billions of expropriated wealth into causes that arguably have no benefit to their own countries.

 

Now the Pope is asking the Western world to be “brave” despite their financial problems and end poverty and hunger (as if it was the sacred responsibility of these governments to carry out these tasks).

 

Needless to say, I am not against charity or helping other countries out, providing such countries are at least partly-free and doing so is of practical benefit to our own.  Indeed, when people are left free to appreciate their own property and wealth they invariably do help the less-fortunate out by charity.  This is undeniable: where do you think any and all existing charity in the world today actually comes from?  It CANNOT come from the have-nots, so it must come from the haves.

 

What I am against is the role of government as a re-distributor of wealth and “saviour” of other less-fortunate countries, which necessarily comes at the sacrificial expense of its own.  It must necessarily come at sacrificial expense, because the billions of pounds being given to help developing nations is not connected to any real world market – it is taken from mass taxation and is not linked to any genuine production (which is the source of wealth).  This is obvious, since if countries were so wealthy that they could spare this much money to help other nations, their economy would not be in the state that it is!

 

The issue of taxation aside, a government’s role is to protect the Rights of its citizens, and that is all.  For a government to actually acquire its own citizens’ wealth and plunge billions of it to aid foreign countries whilst their own economy is on the rocks is not just foolishness, it is treachery.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Western governments to sacrifice even more money on developing countries”

  1. Tony Konrath Says:

    I disagree that the role of a government is simply to “protect the rights of its citizens.”

    There again, when Americans elect a president they want him to “lead” their country. In Europe electors want politicians to “run” their country – and part of that is to efficiently manage funding to others.

    Charity does not begin at home, when it does it is not charity. I think Europeans actually see their goverments as being responsible, in part, for coping with the needs of others. Don’t forget that Americans give less per person to charity that any other people measured in per capita income. That includes government and individual giving.

  2. evanescent Says:

    Tony said:

    I disagree that the role of a government is simply to “protect the rights of its citizens.”

    On what other grounds do you grant government greater power? To accomplish what? Can you justify this morally for me?

    There again, when Americans elect a president they want him to “lead” their country. In Europe electors want politicians to “run” their country – and part of that is to efficiently manage funding to others.

    But since the Right to Life means the right to your own property, nobody can therefore have the Right to redistribute your property. The fact that governments have the power to do so is not a justification for the actions they take.

    Charity does not begin at home, when it does it is not charity.

    Why not? Why is it charity to give money to foreigners but not your own people?

    And money expropriated and handed to others can hardly be called charity. This is like the mafia’s euphemism of “protection money”.

    I think Europeans actually see their goverments as being responsible, in part, for coping with the needs of others.

    No doubt some people do see the government as responsible for this. But 1. if anything, a government MUST proritise the needs of its own citizens, and 2. just as no man is morally or legally obligated to support another, government logically and necessarily, CANNOT have be obligated to either.

    Don’t forget that Americans give less per person to charity that any other people measured in per capita income. That includes government and individual giving.

    I would like to see some statistical backing for this, but needless to say that charity (ultimately) always comes from private wealth. If it wasn’t for private wealth accumulated by personal effort, charity would be impossible. The fact that government takes private wealth through a variety of means and passes it on to other countries (at the expense of its own) doesn’t make the charity “public” or “national”. Indeed, charity taken by force is no charity at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: