• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

True Foreign Aid

KenH

Christian
Aug 1, 2003
4,452
251
69
Arkansas
✟21,318.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
An excellent column by libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

True Foreign Aid

May 1, 2006

A recent Hudson Institute study found that, last year, American citizens voluntarily contributed three times more to help people overseas than did the United States government. This should not surprise us at all, as Americans are generous to those in need, whether here or abroad. There are so many moral, religious, and human reasons to help our fellow men and women in need. It is only when government gets in the way and tries to crowd out private charity that problems arise.

There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced “charity” is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.

There are also practical reasons to oppose governmental foreign aid. Though it may be given with the best intentions, government agencies simply cannot do the kind of job that private charities do in actually helping people in need. Government-to-government assistance seldom helps those really in need. First, because it comes from governments it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. Take our own National Endowment for Democracy for example. The “aid” money it spends is usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins “democratic” elections. This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.

Likewise with the so-called Millennium Challenge Account, which sends US aid to countries that meet US-determined economic reform criteria. The fact is, countries that enact solid economic policies will attract many times the amount of private foreign investment on international capital markets than they receive through the Millennium Challenge program.

Another problem is that when a government gives aid to another government there are so many layers of middlemen involved that by the time the actual aid trickles down to those in need it is a small fraction of the original amount given. Not to mention that much of this aid finds its way into the pockets of corrupt foreign leaders.

Private assistance organizations, on the other hand, are more subject to market forces and thus much more effective. When Americans feel motivated to part with their hard-earned money to help someone overseas, they want to make sure it goes only to the most effective charities. Bad news travels fast, and private charities are unlikely to send their resources where they are likely to be wasted because their contributions would soon dry up. We all recall what happened several years ago when it was revealed that the top management of a major charity organization was paid extremely high salaries: people stopped sending money. The problem corrected itself.

Sadly, this does not happen when government aid is mismanaged. More often than not, the very government agencies that mismanaged the assistance in the first place come back to Congress for a budget increase to solve the problem they created.

So we should be happy to hear that Americans are willing to give so much to help those less fortunate in foreign lands. And we should think hard about all the good we could do both at home and abroad if our government did not take so much from us for its ineffective and wasteful foreign aid priorities. True charity is never coerced.

- www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst050106.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yusuf Evans
Aug 29, 2005
34,371
11,479
✟206,635.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Peacebestill said:
Ron Paul ROXXORS.

Coerced charity is why the likes of millionaire rock star Bono chiding the US govt to give more to the poor rings hollow.
A millionaire wanting to give away MY money is a load of road apples.
Bono has been approaching the US government for years in an effort to get money and support to Africa of AIDS, and as I understand Bush agreed on a 10 billion package.

Peacebestill, are you saying that our government gave the money to Bono, who then donated to African charities? When has Bono gave away any of your money? Wasn't it your president and government that agreed to give away your money?
 
Upvote 0

Yusuf Evans

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2005
10,057
611
Iraq
✟13,443.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Excellent article Ken. It reminds me to tell the international community to pipe down when they cry that Americans are not as generous as their governments. We give more as private citizens than any other nation. The Lord wants a cheerful giver, not a begrudging one.
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
47
Glasgow
✟32,190.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
KalEl76 said:
The Lord wants a cheerful giver, not a begrudging one.

I agree 100%.

While I welcome the generosity of the American people, and think there is something for us all to learn from there, I have a couple of points which I disagree with the article on.

Firstly the 'theft' analogy. Tax is not theft, whatever it is spent on. I reject the 'picking pocket' analogy. By the same argument tax would be theft whatever it is spent on. While there are undoubtedly those who would agree that this is the case, I do not. Tax is legal, and necessary in one form or another in order for any state to function.

The points made about government to government aid are good, but limited to the past record of US government and some other governments giving policy. Giving without accountability for how the money is spent, and giving with political strings attached designed to further the interests of the giver are indeed problematic.

One area which this article ignores is Government to NGO giving. Which is often an extremely successful partnership.

I think accepting the points made in this article 100% conveniently lets rich and powerful governments like those in western developed countries off the hook when it comes to dealing with problem situations around the world.

Government to government giving can work, if done properly. I am currently interested in an initiative set up by the devolved Scottish government which is setting up a special partnership between Scotland and Malawi. The object is to build on old links between Scotland and Malawi which are based on the initial exploration of David Livingstone, and subsequent missionary links. Here there appears to be the beginning of a good model which mixes government and private giving to meet the needs of a struggling country. There is more than just giving taking place. On Wednesday my mother is travelling out to Malawi - she is a headteacher, and is going to visit other headteachers in Malawi with a view to setting up links between her own school and schools in Malawi hopefully leading to increased support from schools here, and exchange programmes.

Here is a link to the relevant Government page:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/News-Extras/malawi

Two final points.

1. I believe that like it or not we have a responsibility as human beings for the wellbeing of one another. Government aid ensures that everyone takes at least some part of that responsibility, and remain free to give more if they choose to. We can cheerfully pay our taxes just as much as we can cheerfully give to charities.
2. Private giving, while being an entirely admirable action also has its problems in terms of strategy. People give to the causes in accordance with their own priorities. That often means that we are spending money on wellfare for our unwanted pets while people die from starvation and preventable disease. I personally see that as a problem and I would be interested in a breakdown of where giving actually goes, and what strings are attached to private giving to soothe the (sometimes misplaced) consciences of the givers as opposed to the needs of the beneficiaries eg private charities with specific agendas to promote, like abstinence only as opposed to ABC.
 
Upvote 0

Alarum

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2004
4,833
344
✟6,792.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
Foreign aid should be done by both governments and charities. Could any number of charities have organized the elimination of small pox? Only through governmental involvement can some things be organized and accomplished. Grassroots is useful, but it is not the be all and end all.
 
Upvote 0

arnegrim

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.
Jun 2, 2004
4,852
140
California
✟28,223.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
ScottishJohn said:
1. I believe that like it or not we have a responsibility as human beings for the wellbeing of one another. Government aid ensures that everyone takes at least some part of that responsibility, and remain free to give more if they choose to. We can cheerfully pay our taxes just as much as we can cheerfully give to charities.

If you could ensure that it was going where intended... you would have a point. But you can't.

ScottishJohn said:
2. Private giving, while being an entirely admirable action also has its problems in terms of strategy. People give to the causes in accordance with their own priorities. That often means that we are spending money on wellfare for our unwanted pets while people die from starvation and preventable disease. I personally see that as a problem and I would be interested in a breakdown of where giving actually goes, and what strings are attached to private giving to soothe the (sometimes misplaced) consciences of the givers as opposed to the needs of the beneficiaries eg private charities with specific agendas to promote, like abstinence only as opposed to ABC.

Why is it wrong to give to what you believe in and not to what you oppose?
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
47
Glasgow
✟32,190.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
arnegrim said:
If you could ensure that it was going where intended... you would have a point. But you can't.

I don't think that the problems in terms of corruption and accountability outweigh the responsibilities I mentioned. Charities - being run by Humans just as much as Governments are - are also prone to the odd failure.

arnegrim said:
Why is it wrong to give to what you believe in and not to what you oppose?

I didn't say it was wrong - I said it has problems.
 
Upvote 0

ballfan

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2005
2,697
12
78
NC
✟25,568.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Bad news travels fast, and private charities are unlikely to send their resources where they are likely to be wasted because their contributions would soon dry up. We all recall what happened several years ago when it was revealed that the top management of a major charity organization was paid extremely high salaries: people stopped sending money."


Does negative news really have that much affect?
 
Upvote 0

arnegrim

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.
Jun 2, 2004
4,852
140
California
✟28,223.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
ScottishJohn said:
I don't think that the problems in terms of corruption and accountability outweigh the responsibilities I mentioned. Charities - being run by Humans just as much as Governments are - are also prone to the odd failure.

They may be prone to failures... but I can be sure my money is going towards the need... and not redirected to some bridge in Alaska.
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
47
Glasgow
✟32,190.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
arnegrim said:
They may be prone to failures... but I can be sure my money is going towards the need... and not redirected to some bridge in Alaska.

Is that so?

http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitieslaw/story/0,,749464,00.html

Charities are just as prone to failure if you sit back and allow them to take your money and do as they will as any government is.

For both systems the key is that we MUST demand and recieve accountability.
 
Upvote 0
A

applepowerpc

Guest
I can think of three cases for foreign aid:

1) Mandatory charitable giving to poor countries with taxpayer dollars.

2) Waging a war by proxy by funding someone else's war effort.

3) Investing in the development of a third world country in the hopes that the economic benefit eventually comes out to benefit us.


The first one I'm against. The second one is a little too deceptive for my conscience, although I'm not sure what your options are if your political enemy is already doing it. It just doesn't make sense that Koreans have to die because U.S. and Russia are in a Cold War. And the third one, I favor the most--but I never see it happening. Well okay, post-WW2 Japan. And Taiwan.
 
Upvote 0

arnegrim

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.
Jun 2, 2004
4,852
140
California
✟28,223.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
ScottishJohn said:
Is that so?

http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitieslaw/story/0,,749464,00.html

Charities are just as prone to failure if you sit back and allow them to take your money and do as they will as any government is.

For both systems the key is that we MUST demand and recieve accountability.

AGAIN... I never said that charities weren't prone to failures... but governments have a LOT more irons in the fire that they need funds for. (see Alaskan bridge and million $ bus stop)
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
47
Glasgow
✟32,190.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
arnegrim said:
AGAIN... I never said that charities weren't prone to failures... but governments have a LOT more irons in the fire that they need funds for. (see Alaskan bridge and million $ bus stop)

You said: 'but I can be sure my money is going towards the need'

That is just not the case.

I'm not going to get drawn into a tangent on how your Government mismanages its money when noone holds it to account. This is about foreign aid, not domestic spending, and particularly about whether Government or Charity is inherently better at managing money, and as both are constituted from fallible humans the answer is no. Where Government has an advantage over Charity is that it is more stable in its funding allowing for more stablity in its work, and it is also more able to take a strategic view.
 
Upvote 0

arnegrim

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.
Jun 2, 2004
4,852
140
California
✟28,223.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ok... would you like it if I rephrased it as...

I can be sure MORE of my money is going towards the need.

As for governments being more 'stable'... I don't agree... because what they see as a 'need' today they may not see as a 'need' tomorrow... simply because they have so much more to deal with then a charity focused on helping others.
 
Upvote 0

Letalis

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2004
20,242
972
36
Miami, FL
✟25,650.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Government aid: Money forcibly taken in the name of charity and given to causes that I may not want to give to.

I may not even want to give money in aid to anyone. That should be my right.

Private charities: I know where my money is going and to what cause it is funding.

Obviously I'm much more in favor of private charities.
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
47
Glasgow
✟32,190.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
arnegrim said:
Ok... would you like it if I rephrased it as...

I can be sure MORE of my money is going towards the need.

That depends on what need you are referring to, and what charity. Surely the stories I posted show that Charities are just as likely to have money siphoned off by crooks as governments are.

arnegrim said:
As for governments being more 'stable'... I don't agree... because what they see as a 'need' today they may not see as a 'need' tomorrow... simply because they have so much more to deal with then a charity focused on helping others.

The difference between Charities and Governments in terms of stability is that Charities are hamstrung by their dependance on voluntary contributions. A disaster happens elsewhere, and all of a sudden their contributions dry up. They get an undeserved bad press or are associated with some wrongdoing, and their contributions dry up. They are working with an challenging group like aids victims or sex workers and they have to compete against fluffy puppies for support from the public.

Governments have a stable source of income, and because of this are able to take a longer view.
 
Upvote 0

Mocca

MokAce - Priest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Jan 1, 2006
1,529
45
38
✟24,437.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Libertarian
I believe any tax money I pay that isn't going to help myself or someone that I'd help anyway is theft.

People should be able to choose what to do with their money. What charity to give to, or even to give money to charity, should be a personal choice, not a choice made by the government.

:thumbsup: Good article. (Go libertarians!)
 
Upvote 0

KenH

Christian
Aug 1, 2003
4,452
251
69
Arkansas
✟21,318.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Mocca said:
People should be able to choose what to do with their money. What charity to give to, or even to give money to charity, should be a personal choice, not a choice made by the government.

An excellent point! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0