/liberty/ - Liberty

I mean we need the world government because people don't include the whole planet as the tribe

>>19176

>I really believe that left to their own devices individuals give too much of their money to charities at home instead of helping dying Africans who need it a lot more.

>too much

>need it a lot more

Both of these phrases reflect your personal preferences, and have no moral authority to them.

In fact,

>at home

is somewhat subjective, since you're arbitrarily deciding that some measure of geographic proximity constitutes "home", rather than considering that social bonds are not necessarily constrained geographically.

>It's probably to do with how people evolved and the nature of empathy

Agreed.

>But really are you willing individuals allocate charity

Absolutely. It's their property, and they are right to dispose of it how they see fit. They are under no obligation to give charitably in the first place; it is an absurdity to think you have the moral authority to command the allocation of these gifts.

>they don't allocate it where it ought to go?

Again, this is purely an expression of your personal aesthetic prejudices.

> Don't we need some sort of world government, with a small welfare state,

>world government

>small welfare state

This is incongruous. A global monopoly is effectively unlimited in its capacity for corruption and abuse, regardless of how artfully penned its founding documents are.

You might also consider that a fair amount (perhaps even the majority) of the aid that goes to Africans and other remote countries has the undesirable effect of crippling their local economies and destroying their capacity for growth and prosperity. Charity must be allocated with extreme care and accountability, and to entrust such a thing to an institution with no competition, no global accountability (and don't fool yourself; no government has ever been accountable short of a violent revolution) is utter madness unless your goal is to bring about a degree of human suffering and death unlike the world has ever seen.

>>19176

>It's probably to do with how people evolved and the nature of empathy

Then so what?

>>19176

Most overseas aid given today does more harm than good. Free American grain has prevented modern agriculture from developing throughout sub-saharan African, and instead created massive dependency.

>>19179

>preferences bla bla bla

Yes I suppose it's my preference to have less misery in the world / Africa instead of more.

I prefer to be happy instead of miserable, and science tells us Africans feel the same way.

Therefore there's maybe an extent to which we know that it's better for people not to be miserable- and tribal instincts about where to give charity are just wrong, since they don't reduce misery as much

>morality bla bla bla

Gimme a break. What's going to happen if we do immoral things? Sky God eats the world? Since when are invisible rights more important than human flourishing?

>global monopoly

This is something I actually care about.

There could be ways to do it where you require people to give say 10% of their income to registered foreign aid charities, and then you hope they give it to the ones who actually help people. Hopefully the market would find out a way to do it so it actually helps.

Currently only 2% of US income is given as charity and the vast majority is given to charities in America. It just seems incorrect when it only takes a few dollars to save people's lives.

So even if some of it is wasted you have to think the total effect would be positive

>>19203

>I prefer to be happy instead of miserable, and science tells us Africans feel the same way.

>Therefore there's maybe an extent to which we know that it's better for people not to be miserable

This doesn't follow at all. I prefer to be happy, but that doesn't mean I necessarily care about the happiness of people outside my kin and kith.

>and tribal instincts about where to give charity are just wrong, since they don't reduce misery as much

You haven't given us an actual reason to care about abstract misery yet. You either instinctively have that much empathy or you don't. Go cry me a river.

>>19203

>my preference to have less misery in the world

Go ahead and quantify misery or happiness in an empirically meaningful way. You can't do it. Felicific calculus is a pipe dream.

Plus you're still skipping out on the whole "most foreign aid actually hurts the poor" thing. They don't need handouts; they need business opportunities. You want to help the Africans? Open businesses out there. Offer them jobs. Those jobs will suck at first, but after a couple generations of genuine economic growth, that region will be a relatively desirable place to live.

Or you could just keep dumping resources on their heads and preventing local industries from forming. Whatever.

>What's going to happen if we do immoral things?

Then you will be in conflict with your fellow man, and will be wasting resources and exposing people to un-needed risk and violence. That results in the destruction of wealth. There are very real pragmatic reasons for ethical behavior.

>Since when are invisible rights more important than human flourishing?

Those "invisible rights" are human flourishing. Prosperity is a product of freedom, not the other way around.

>There could be ways to do it where you require people to

The moment you have the authority to "require people to" do whatever, especially on a global scale, you are already an all-consuming tyranny, and that power will be captured by special interests and turned to corrupt ends. You cannot use the One Ring for good; it must be destroyed.

>Currently only 2% of US income is given as charity

First, government spending crowds out private spending. If there were less government welfare, people would contribute more of their assets to charitable donations.

Second, if people didn't have half or more of their money being taken away in taxes, that 2% would be a hell of a lot more money being given to charity anyway.

>So even if some of it is wasted

Like 80%? You do know that the US gov't wastes 80% of tax dollars, right? That means that the portion of your taxes that go to charitable giving are cut down to a fifth before they go to do any "good". And that figure isn't unusual among governments. You want to create a global government and expect it to somehow waste less? Fat chance.

Really, charity hurts Africa more than it helps them at this point. It drives the local economies into a shitty spiral.

https://medium.com/@magattew/stop-raising-money-for-relief-and-start-investing-in-africa-bd5c44a75557#.rqqv4kowg

Pretty much read or listen to anything from Magatte Wade. She's one of the smartest Africans I know/have met, and she talks extensively on shit like charity and needless involvement in Africa. It ought to NOT go to Africa because it's killing them economically, intellectually, and population-wise as well.

Empathy scales with identification. Intuitively, you empathise most with things which are like you. This is why we say that "charity begins at home". Charity should generally begin with those with which you share a dwelling because there exists the greatest potential return.

Contrary to progressive thinking, people are not the same the world over. Foreigners are, in fact, foreign. Strangers differ in their ethics, their customs and their experiences, that's why they're strangers to each other. People rightfully expect different things from people who speak their language, share their genes (look like them), share their religion or system of laws, or have grown up in the same environment.

Under particular circumstances, strangers can be nurtured to be more alike but, in principle, strangers must be different by definition. Beggars aren't colleagues. Refugees aren't compatriots. Sunnis aren't Maronites. Africans aren't Canadians.

When people are rationally charitable, their action is not based on who is in the most need but on whose welfare is in their long term interest. Charity – as an evolved human instinct – is a means of investment, a purposeful behaviour; it is not an act of pure altruism.

>>19219

That is the sanest thing I've seen written under a swastika. I've got pretty much nothing to disagree with here. This is a sound (if incomplete) anthropological examination of empathy and "equality".

Sage because this thread is dumb.

Wew.

First of all, a one world government is already tyrannical. If you don't think that power will be abused then you're incredibly naive.

People should own the fruits of their labor and forcing people to give it up against their will to spend on things they don't want to is pretty shitty and authoritarian. Governments and charities have a tendency of corruption, waste, and doing more harm than good. Look at where a lot of your tax dollars and charity contributions go. If people weren't so heavily taxed they'd have more time and money for altruistic acts. People should be able to do with their money as they see fit, forcing people to do things against their will with the threat of violence is incompatible with liberty.

Also welfare doesn't work. Despite decades of foreign aid, Africa hasn't improved much and they're dependent on welfare. We should be educating them and helping setup basic infrastructure, creating engineers, doctors, farmers, construction workers, teaching them modern agriculture, helping setup clean water, basic sustainable energy, libraries, contraceptives, basic manufacturing, etc. Teach a man to fish yada-yada.