Group: Members
Posts: 636
Sparks: 3
Color:
Coolness: 0 Store Stats
Joined: 3-January 05
Member No.: 71
QUOTE(theonlysaneone @ Feb 1 2010, 09:27 PM)
QUOTE(Rexozord @ Feb 1 2010, 01:39 PM)
QUOTE(Jonny9 @ Feb 1 2010, 11:54 AM)
It's really easy for spoiled Americans to say that their country has no obligation to aid others, especially when the riches of America were built on the backs of the downtrodden. A life does not become more valuable simply because the person was lucky enough to be born into a first world country.
I agree that life does not become more valuable due to circumstances. However, our country (or anyone else's country, for that matter) has no obligation to any other country. Our government's function is to rule us, and that's where the jurisdiction lies. If our government also ruled Haiti then it would be obligated to help the people there, but it does not.
Of course, I am by no means against private donations and volunteerism. (In fact, NGO aid to other countries is typically more effective than governmental aid anyway.) I just think that a person should not be forced to donate to, say, Haiti by a government that is not responsible for Haiti.
You bring up an interesting point, and that is that perhaps we should be ruling Haiti. They are very close to our shores, their government might as well be completely nonfunctional, and nothing we can do to them will make their situation worse than it already is. Why don't we just send in a governor-general and run the place for the next half century? When they're fully developed we can then talk about independence.
Because nothing resonates with American values like ruling a population without extending them voting rights.