Funny how a lot of people get all worked up about animals being slaughtered, but have no comment when humans are being gas-bombed. Or they even start protesting hystericly when the one who gas-bombed those people gets removed.

Well. That's mankind 101.

Save the seals!!!!!11!!111!!!!

Shave the whales!

I doubt that would work.

According to the taxpayer's guide to spending available here http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/253.html in pdf format,
the Federal government set aside 756 million dolars for General and special Funds for foreign aid. Also, the "International Assistance Program" had a budget of around 15 billion dollars, primarily for humanitarian and economic relief.
That is to say nothing of the department of Education's 50-something billion dollar budget, and the Department of Health and Human Services'
half a trillion dollar budget (excepting the FDA's 1 billion dollar budget)


No private charity (or charites) can match that level of investment. Of course, since these are government expenditures, I would venture that they are spent poorly and as such are largely ineffective. And these are just a few of the examples in which the state doles out funds for human welfare.

Were that money to be placed in the hands of the people, who may choose to invest some of it in charity, then maybe they could significantly improve the lives of others.


Another problem is that most of the world's poorest countries have socialist or totalitarian governments and/or command economies. A brief visit to http://www.heritage.org/Index/ provides support for this argument.
I can post links to more sites with similar information, if needed.

Since these countries are in the grip of statist regimes, there is nothing that can really be done to help them. It's like the old adage, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
You can never do anything but give these people fish, because their economic system will continually drive them into poverty. As their population grows, the amount of aid needed expands in direct proportion. (sometimes a J-curve:o )

Even if all the first and second-world nations united in providing relief for the 3rd world, which they already do to a significant degree, they would only bankrupt themselves within a few years or decades, thus bringing them closer to the status of those they sought to help. Remember that most (if not all) of the world's nations are already in debt.

The obvious solution seems to be replacing the regimes of such countries with military force or subterfuge. But this does not work, either. It incurs massive state debts, and there is no guarantee that the new regime will be permanent.

The only solution, and indeed the only thing that will ever happen, is to let the process of natural selection work. Weak and foolish nations wither and die. Intelligent ones prosper and become strong, for a time. Then they over-reach and overspend, and in time, they wither and die as well. And they are replaced by new powers, all of whom are doomed to repeat the same process.

The watchword must always be "Freedom". When people are free they trade, they produce, and they prosper. Sometimes they quarrel or cheat one another. When they do so, it is the role of government to intervene. Other than that, government is only an economic hinderance, and therefore, a threat to the people.

Within the realm of education, many countries have state-sponsored schools and perform better than the U.S. Generally, these countries allow competition amongst schools and allow parents to choose what school their child(ren) will go to. Competition benefits the children, as poor schools fail and good ones thrive.
However, the state still incurs considerable debt in doing so. A debt that will one day be unsustainable.

In the realm of citizen welfare the state fails again. It removes incentive and encourages the poor to maintain their lifestyle at the expense of others. After all, if one in destitution can recieve free money or guaranteed employment, why should they ever change?

Charity does similar things sometimes, but only because contributors allow it to do so. If a charity fails to achieve its' goal or is superceded by another, more effective charity, people will invest their charity dollars somewhere else.

Competition and the free market is what drives society and living standards upwards. Even the poor and disadvantaged benefit, and it has little to do with the collectivization of social authority.

Our money is wasted on humanitarian efforts in socialist or totalitarian countries. The prosperity of those countries is dependent entirely upon the will of their people.

Maybe they will revolt and establish a democratic and economically free regime. Maybe they won't. If so, sucks to be them. They will have to repeat history again.


Do you see what I am saying here? The effectiveness of foreign aid depends upon the nature of the donor state and the recipient state. If the recipient state has a poor economy and a centralist government, there is no hope for prosperity. If the donor state forces its' population to contribute to foreign aid efforts via taxes, it only brings itself closer to economic ruin.

Charity efforts (no matter whether state or private) towards places like the Democratic Republic of Congo or Indonesia or, or India, are a waste. They only make the problem worse.

It is govenrnment which determines the prosperity of the people and it is government which denies the same.

The absolute power of the state should be feared, respected, and brought to heel.
You cannot combat the power of foreign states by throwing money at them or their people.

Consider that before you donate $4 to a rich and evil dictator(president premier, whatever) in some 3rd world hellhole.


What a ridiculously long rant. Thoughts? Anyone?

Well, I wasn't necessarily talking about foreign aid.

Which human charities make the best use of the money is a whole different issue.

True. Very true. But the overall level of human development depends wholly on the political and economic systems of recipient nations.

So really, considering that the poorest nations in the world have centralist governments and economies, how much good could you do? How do we solve their problems?

I wasn't even necessarily talking about aid to foreign countries at all. ;)

Oh Sure, they look all cute, cuddly and furry. But when your back is turned those little devils in white fur are saying things about you and I, and it aint purdy. Reckon I think they got it comin....:stare:

Don't kid yourselves for a minute. If a seal could do so, he or she would club you and everyone you love...

It's club or be clubbed in this doggy dog world:nope:

Save the plankton!!!

WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST.:stare:

UnderseaLcpl, you seem to be advocating a form of social and econmic 'Darwinism', would you agree with this?

You have piqued my curiosity. What system would you propose? What countries are you talking about? The UK? The US? The EU?


Good heavens no! Of course I don't advocate it. I would love nothing more than to see all the nations of the world engage in free trade, consentual mutual aid, and shared prosperity.

But centralist states destroy that possibility. When they do engage in free trade the people do not benefit as much as they should. Only the State prospers. When other countries aid them, the State of the recipient nation reaps the rewards. They cannot share prosperity because their economic systems are virtual black holes.

The fact is that nations that embrace economic freedom and development will prosper, whereas nations that do not will die. Public debt, whether from war or expansion, destroys nations.
History has shown us this. China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Germany, Spain, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, China again, Britain again, Germany again, Britain yet again, the Soviet Union, Germany yet again, China again (almost, the introduction of "Special Economic Zones" saved them) and the U.S., in time.

How do you "fix" these states? Diplomacy? Good luck. Military intervention? The U.S. has suffered the failure of that strategy six times now ( not including several minor operations in Central America) The Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Operation Iraqi Freedom. All of these wars have done little more than create massive public debt, whilst achieving only limited success in Korea and possibly Iraq.

Nations that suffer from poor economies brought about by centralist regimes will always fail. We (first-world countries) only hasten our own demise by assuming their economic burden.

Social and economic Darwinism is our only recourse. While I would not rule out diplomatic efforts, I doubt they will be of much value.

Evolution and competition are very powerful forces in nature, and they do not abate merely from the presence of human beings.

Perhaps the day will come when we can produce unlimited energy and resources, and in doing so we could entrust a state to provide for all. That day is not today, nor will it come in the near future.

So, economic and social darwinism, while not things I would favor personally, are the forces that will determine that fate of nations, as they always have, for the forseeable future. We can ignore this and falter, or we can embrace it and prosper.
The choice is ours, and thus far, we seem to favor the option of repeating history yet again.

There are a vast range of human charities.
Study into illness, disability support, community projects, the elderly, children
charities, mental health support, sport related charities, health care funds,
anit-crime projects, education and schools, war veterans groups, etc. etc.

All of them apply to every country in the world, all need money.
It is a crying shame that more money is given to cat homes and the like than to
these, much more deserving, causes in the UK.

Well said.

What is the purpose of this cull?

Is it population control, hide gathering or a meat resource? Or all of the above.

Why club? What's wrong with using a gun or is ammunition too expensive to expend on an animal now? Save that for the bi-pedal types then.:hmm:

Well, that depends on one's point of view. There are those who do not value human life as much as you or I would, whatever their reasons.

But how do you overcome the massive amounts of debt the UK has incurred?
That debt will harm your country more than any lack or misplacement of charity. Mine as well.

All I'm saying is that in an economically free society fewer people need charity, and those that contribute to charity have more money to give. And charity is more effective than government for resons I outlined above, the main being that people can choose between charities, but they cannot choose their government. There are no true democracies in the world.

Wouldn't it be wiser to attack the power of the state before you attack the supporters of animal charities?

Assuming that you had fiat powers over Parliament, which would you pursue first? The economic freedom of the people? Or the regulation of charity dollars to benefit health and welfare charities?

I'm also questioning the idea that animal charities recieve more money than human welfare charities. That may be true in the U.K., I'm not sure. Do you have a link or a source I could look at that supports that claim? I'm almost afraid to ask because I fear it might be true, but I'd like to have the information anyway.

People like dyed seal fur, so once they are beaten to a bloody pulp, they do not have to spend the time and money using dye.