S
Scourge
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
gop_jeff... thanks for the welcome!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Scourge
Or is it survival of the fittest?
Originally posted by Scourge
Survival of the fittest... so might is right?
Do you suggest suspending the rule of law in favor of the rule of the jungle? If I CAN kill you and take what's yours, more power to me? And vice versa?
I just wish to clarify this before I nail boards across my door, and start hoarding canned goods.
Originally posted by Scourge
Dear Moi,
I didn't say the U.S. was at or near the bottom in terms of giving aid, only near the bottom PERCENTAGE-wise. I mean if I give $100 to charity and Bill gates gives $500, sure he is giving more, but is he really a humanitarian? It's the amount you give compared to the amount you have I was referring to.
On a side note: We could end world hunger if we put a few years of defense budgets towards the problem! that old saying about the army having a bake sale to raise money for arms is kind of true... all this capital and few good uses...
Originally posted by Scourge
OK....
Since we have changed the subject from my original point...(lol) we might as well discuss this. they might be more factors determining poverty and famine than just style of government. If the U.S. was situated on desert land and did not border any bodies of water (for example) would capitalism and democracy be feeding everyone? it's easy to be in a free market when you have both power and capital, it's not so easy when you have neither. Perhaps, if we didn't get rich off the backs of less fortunate countries we could talk about hand-outs, but we have taken hand-outs by force or coercion from too many small states/countries and used that power to build the empire we now reside in. Where's the equality in that? Or is it survival of the fittest? Most ruthless? He who goes for the jugular writes the textbooks...
Originally posted by gop_jeff
And which countries, specifically, have we gotten rich off of?
Originally posted by SinisterMotives
I didn't say I agree with it, I was just answering your question. Our country - and the West in general - always has and probably always will use its superior might to take what belongs to other cultures and exploit them for our own gain. It seems to be our fate to live down to Darwin's lowest expectations in that regard. It would be nice to believe that we have their best interests at heart, but 400 years of Western history do not support such a belief nor give one hope that we may evolve into the altruistic beings we pretend to be anytime soon. I suppose the best we can do is be thankful we're Americans and not members of the "less advanced" cultures we exploit.
OK, let's talk about your landlocked desert nation (Chad, maybe?) With the benefits of capitalism and free trade, the economy of said country would be free to create whatever goods are most beneficial for trading for other things, like food, water, etc.
Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Are we counting the Native American nations that covered the western hemisphere and whose lands we took by force, or should we just let that slip?
Originally posted by Scourge
Specifically (scratches head) all of Central America? maybe parts of East Asia... I would have to go check out specifics but the Dole situation (I think it was Dole, maybe Del monte?) in terms of bananas and meesing with governments and exploiting peasant workers, etc. is what i was referring to. Don't forget along with Capitalism, we had a huge rich land, capable of growing almost anything, tons of water, and a massive unpaid slave workforce to get us going. that, I consider to be an advantage, it wasn't all hard work and entrepreneurial spirit. [/B]
Originally posted by gop_jeff
Touche! But, do you count that as exploitation or conquering? I would say the latter.
Originally posted by gop_jeff
Touche! But, do you count that as exploitation or conquering? I would say the latter.
Personally, I think the percentage is way too high. Who decided that my money is better spent helping out the other countries on earth? That's just a ridiculous premises to start with. The fact that we give even one penny should be applauded; people should't be standing there with their hands out and no other country should be pointing their fingers at us in an attempt to shame us into giving more.Originally posted by Scourge
Dear Moi,
I didn't say the U.S. was at or near the bottom in terms of giving aid, only near the bottom PERCENTAGE-wise. I mean if I give $100 to charity and Bill gates gives $500, sure he is giving more, but is he really a humanitarian? It's the amount you give compared to the amount you have I was referring to.
On a side note: We could end world hunger if we put a few years of defense budgets towards the problem! that old saying about the army having a bake sale to raise money for arms is kind of true... all this capital and few good uses...
Originally posted by Moi
I am not interested in ending world hunger. Nor am I interested in curing the African continent of AIDS. Since when is it my responsibility to clean up the problems of the world? I just cannot understand the premises underlying those statements.
Originally posted by Moi
Personally, I think the percentage is way too high. Who decided that my money is better spent helping out the other countries on earth? That's just a ridiculous premises to start with. The fact that we give even one penny should be applauded; people should't be standing there with their hands out and no other country should be pointing their fingers at us in an attempt to shame us into giving more.
I am not interested in ending world hunger. Nor am I interested in curing the African continent of AIDS. Since when is it my responsibility to clean up the problems of the world? I just cannot understand the premises underlying those statements.