Today, while perusing the news headlines, I came across one from the Washington Post, which proclaimed "The Arab world’s wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syria’s refugees" and asked "Why are Saudi Arabia and its oil-rich neighbors doing so little for Syria's refugees?"

Now, this certainly isn't a unique way of phrasing such a story. We see headlines almost daily which decry the fact that "X is doing nothing to help Y."

And it implies that some obligation exists for X to help Y.


"All these people want to do is illegally enter your country, consume your public services, commit crimes and foment cultural dissidence, all while contributing nothing at all to your society. Why aren't you inviting them to do this?"


I take issue with this.

 

I'll take the bait:

I take issue with the increasingly popular attitude that if from where you're standing (which frankly, means precisely dick, because your exposure to the actual and underlying issues is well filtered and hugely limited) people seem to be undeserving of help, that the best approach is to do nothing for them. They all probably deserve the hardship, somehow. "Victim of circumstance" can't possibly be a real thing, can it? But even it IS a real thing; "**** 'em", because nobody should ever prosper (be safe?) from the hard work of another.

Bordering countries could always offer Syrians refuge, employ them at cut-rate pay, block their access to benefits, then tax them on purchases, all while demonizing their existence & ignoring the services that they provide. Works for us, amirite!?

The world does not benefit from ignoring social issues, only to let them fester & grow. Speaking of- how's that been working out so far, globally?

 

Religion.

 

Is maybe the most detrimental and social advancement limiting hang-up in the modern world.

 

its greedy and bad to create wealth for yourself.

it's not greedy and good to want to take someone else's wealth.


inb4 the new collossus

 

<p>Seagull</p>

 

Is this an increasingly popular attitude?

It seems to me that "the populace", at least in North America, seem to be adopting precisely the opposite attitude. I judge this largely based on exposure to social media, of course, but the number of public outpourings of empathy and demands for "social justice" not merely for the politically oppressed of the eastern nations, but also for newly-invented "delicate" classes (the transgendered, people who are easily "triggered" by things, people who believe that they were "raped", people who want religious organizations which are opposed to contraception to provide them with free contraceptives, etc) seems to be increasing.



This seems to presuppose a highly elastic demand for labor, and / or a zero domestic unemployment rate coupled with a large pre-existing demand for additional labor.

Otherwise, you get into the "dey took er jerbs!" argument popular in the American south.

 

He said, referring to the heirs of successful entrepreneurs, whom personally accomplished very little themselves.

 

<p></p><p>Not to sidetrack the OP discussion but <strong><em>Per stirpes </em></strong>is a well established, and accepted thing in society.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

what's your point?


let me rephrase:

its greedy and bad to have wealth and use it as you please.

it's not greedy and good to want to take someone else's wealth.



“Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?” ― Thomas Sowell

 

Not sure how "Per Stirpes" applies here. I'm not ignorant to inheritance laws or distribution of Estates. What's funny, again, is that the industries that provide many of these Middle Eastern countries with their wealth, are owned by or operated by heirs. Which is to say, they simply fell into wealth and security. The very same thing which they protest doing for others. The difference is, these peoples lives dependent on this generosity right now.

I find it hugely ironic. To not is...obtuse.



PS: I bet the Syrian streets are literally paved with dead cats right now. Won't you, help me, help the cats??

 

what gain do they get if they help?

how about we just arm them, and then in 10 years they can use those weapons against us for something?

 

Wut?

Since when did Humanitarianism become on exercise in Quid Pro Quo?

 

<p>In a hereditary transfer of wealth, the benefactor (by not issuing a will to the contrary) makes a conscious decision to bequeath money and / or property to heirs. If so desired, one can arrange a will or trust which allows for the transfer of wealth to other targets, such as charitable organizations, foundations, etc.&nbsp;</p><p>So if a person says <em>&quot;when I die, I want my money to be given to an organization which provides aid to refugees in Syria,&quot;</em> that's fine.&nbsp;</p><p>The difference here is that a certain group of people seem to be of the conviction that a certain <em>other</em> group of people are under some kind of implied moral obligation to render money and/or assistance to foreigners whose interests may or may not be in any way aligned with or of consequence to the would-be aid givers.&nbsp;</p><p>I find that to be an oddly perverse notion.&nbsp;</p>

 

would poscat.

 

<p></p><p>To me its about opportunities. People being oppressed in a 3rd world country don't have a chance at ever reaching the things that someone who starts out in a safe, encouraging environment, with good parents, social support and services. IMO there is a basic level of &quot;livable&quot; that a lot of the country isn't at. Living in daily fear of death is not something any human being should ever be faced with.</p><p>Being poor and a lazy ******* is completely different.</p>

 

This is absolutely true.

My own family, for instance, would never have thrived if they'd remained in Cuba after the revolution, which resulted in the expropriation and nationalization of their business (a textile factory) and the land upon which it resided, as well as a couple of summary executions. After participating in counter-revolutionary activities for a short time, they fled to the US with nothing but what they could carry (and no exchangeable currency), worked menial jobs there for a while, then moved to PR and started over from scratch.

I'm all for families and individuals lifting themselves out of oppression and poverty. Obviously this is more difficult in areas with mature, established fascist regimes and which are geographically isolated by a great distance from sympathetic nations (eg: much of central Africa, the central and eastern USSR during the communist period, etc.) Sometimes, life just sucks that way, and GDP isn't really a factor. There are extremely poor nations with high levels of political and religious freedom, and relatively wealthy nations with large classes subject to institutionalized repression extending to violence.


My question, however, is why an implied burden of responsibility is apportioned onto certain states to render aid to others. Or, put another way, why is the crisis of a foreign nation and its people my problem? As a matter of historical precedent, attempts to intervene on a mass-scale in the oppressive governments of foreign nations have not tended to end well, regardless of the nations involved.

 

<p>Don't look at them as a different nation, look at them as other human beings. Just because they are from somewhere else in the world they are still humans like you and me.</p><p>People take nations too seriously, were all people, and nations are just political lines that someone drew in history. I hate that racism has become such a huge issue. People from other races are all different, why should they be treated so differently.</p>

 

/thread


and

 

<p>**** religion. and **** everything about it.</p><p>This is my #1 pet peeve about current politics. How the **** can someone be considered for an office when they bring their religious beliefs into politics.</p><p>Certain republicans bend the 2nd amendment to say that we should be able to own any gun we want, and with no restrictions, but ignore the 1st amendment and TRY AND TEACH RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. or the argument about gay marriage, like wtf, how can you take yourself seriously when you are quoting religion in your political decisions.</p><p>/off-topic-rant</p>