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.