This post is in response to the question, “Do we, as a economically prosperous developed nation, have a moral duty to help citizens of countries in need? If so, how and to what extent?” by @leighwelch
There is no doubt that Americans (even those in poverty) are far better off than most people around the world. We have so many opportunities, assistance programs, and generous people seemingly at every corner. I believe that because we are so “rich” compared to the rest of the world, we do have a moral duty to help others; however, this should not be a job left to our government. I understand that NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are technically separate from the government, but they are still using government funds. I am strictly opposed to this because all Americans have to pay the taxes that are then being funneled into NGOs. We should help foreign countries, but not in the way it is currently being done. The efforts should be private and they should focus on empowering the foreign communities to support themselves. The current NGOs that send supplies abroad are only resulting in damaged economic systems.
Congratulations @lavender22! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 30 posts.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
An interesting perspective and one that I do understand to some extent, albeit that I don't agree with completely. If there is agreement that there is a moral duty to help, then why not in a way that asks everybody to pay their fair share? The United States earmarks approximately $43bn per year in foreign aid and this is split across a number of areas from military aid to humanitarian assistance. The aid takes the form of $funding for counter-terrorism operations and strengthening of legal and judicial systems, emergency aid, technical support and expertise, economic development and so on source. These initiatives help to stabilise world economies and therefore provide great benefit to the US both directly and indirectly. "According to the think tank Council on Foreign Relations, policymakers see foreign aid as a way to promote global economic development, and global economic development promotes U.S. national security... According to a 2017 letter to Congress authored by retired U.S. admirals and generals, foreign aid is crucial to preventing conflict, which reduces military deployments and casualties." source. Given that foreign aid comprises only 0.7% of the federal budget spend per annum, which equates to approx $130 per capita spend or $301 per taxpayer, this would seem to be a fair tradeoff for the gains being made. But given further that a 2017 article cites that the richest 1% of all Americans pay 39.5% of all federal income tax source, this leaves a more realistic per tax payer contribution of $184 per year and per capita of $79, for the rest of American society of around. If the USA chose to remove foreign aid from the budget altogether, then how would these government goals be achieved. You mention it should fall to the private domain, but what exactly constitutes this? Charities? Wall Street? Individuals? And who will coordinate the response and determine how the funds are spent? I'm just attempting to provide some context for the rationale behind governments around the world spearheading foreign aid. I find the debate both interesting and enlightening ;-)