Does non-interventionism go against basic humanitarian aid?

[Starks]

Just wondering.

[mesler]

The libertarian answer to human aid is private organizations (like Red Cross) and private contributions.

In a libertarian society, we will have more money in our pockets to give to charities and we'll feel more compelled to give because we would not say "Well, our govt has it covered."

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Just wondering.

no. Individuals and organizations can still give away resources. Even the government can, but you need to do it the right way. The president just taking the military and going on "humanitarian missions" is against the constitution, you need congressional approval. Why? Because, congresspeople are supposed to be representatives of the will of the people. I'm a libertarian, but I'd probably support helping out in Darfur, I think it'd be good for public opinion. We should go about it the CORRECT way though.

[Spike Kojima]

Well you are more than welcome to use the extra money you no longer have to give in taxes to send as humanitarian aid.
No middle man that way.

[NoxTwilight]

I believe that Dr Paul believes that humanitarian aid is best provided by private charity such as Red Cross and religious organizations. This makes sense as there is no way political power can be used as favor trading.

Without the huge burden of running a huge gov't we will be much richer and much more likely to give to charitable organizations to help people. Just as many of us do now.

[Kuldebar]

By the Federal Government, yes.

Because the underlying issue is how humanitarian aid is defined and where the money comes from. Private Charities are far more effective and judicious. One needs only look as recently as Hurricane Katrina to see how effective "aid" can be when coming from the government.

[LibertyEagle]

Read...

Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee

http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

[Marceline88]

Humanitarian Aid should come from Tithing not Taxation.

[itsnobody]

There's nothing wrong with helping other nations, we just only do it with congressional approval.....also private organizations can help as much as they want...

More intervention usually leads to more problems...

[Spirit of '76]

As Dr. Paul said in Pittsburgh, "If you want to go to Darfur, take your own money and go to Darfur."

[Starks]

What concerns me domestically is that if god forbid another Katrina-level hurricane hits, is whether the millions of dollars to repair critical infrastructure (dams and levies) will be readily available from the Red Cross. Can private contractors or the Red Cross compensate for not being able to dispatch an Army Corps of Engineers?

[Kuldebar]

What concerns me domestically is that if god forbid another Katrina-level hurricane hits, is whether the millions of dollars to repair critical infrastructure (dams and levies) will be readily available from the Red Cross. Can private contractors or the Red Cross compensate for not being able to dispatch an Army Corps of Engineers?

Well, first remember what agencies were responsible to keep maintain those levees and dams in the first place: the Army Corps of Engineers and a joint committee made up of local state and government representatives. Now, look at how the money was spent over the years prior to the hurricane.

Compare this to Galveston Texas in 1900:
http://www.1900storm.com/storm/index.lasso
http://www.1900storm.com/storm/storm5.lasso

[john_anderson_ii]

What concerns me domestically is that if god forbid another Katrina-level hurricane hits, is whether the millions of dollars to repair critical infrastructure (dams and levies) will be readily available from the Red Cross. Can private contractors or the Red Cross compensate for not being able to dispatch an Army Corps of Engineers?

The Army Corps of Engineers and National Guard will still be used to handle such disasters. We are talking about putting troops on foreign soil for humanitarian efforts.

All the legaleze aside, I don't think we should use our military on humanitarian missions, mainly because what might happen in a place like Darfur.

The U.S. sends grain to Darfur to feed the poor. The warlords want this grain in order to better control the poor, so the U.S. sends troops to protect the grain. The troops get fired upon, but they are under very restrictive rules of engagement that must be hashed out before they can defend themselves. Sure, they can shoot back and stay alive, but they might be court martialed or otherwise punished. Plus, if they are in an area where the rules of engagement get hazy, they won't have air support, possibly even medivacs until the politicians decide if the grain is a worth an international military "incident".

Basically, U.S. troops are the right hand of the U.S. executive. Anything they do, good intended or not, is an action taken by the United States.

The private sector in the same situation hires mercenaries from say, chechnia (spelling?). These mercenaries can defend the grain in Darfur without such restraints, and political crap. Anything they do is the action of the private charity, not the U.S. Even if what they are doing is illegal in Darfur, it will be up to the government in Darfur to apprehend and prosecute them. However, with the government is a bunch of warlords, the apprehension would be difficult.

[kylejack]

What concerns me domestically is that if god forbid another Katrina-level hurricane hits, is whether the millions of dollars to repair critical infrastructure (dams and levies) will be readily available from the Red Cross. Can private contractors or the Red Cross compensate for not being able to dispatch an Army Corps of Engineers?

Katrina: The disaster where Red Cross was prevented from entering the city with food and water and people starved at the convention center for over 4 days.

[Kuldebar]

Katrina and Socialist Central Planning (video) (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/ss05/ss05-Rockwell.wmv)

Excellent recap of how federal aid "helped' Katrina recovery.

[Paulitician]

This is what one Ron Paul supporter who lived through Katrina has to say about it retrospectively: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKic1ntghu0

The media always loves to spin it in different directions I get so dizzy I don't understand reality anymore!

[BIG_J]

Just think how much many children you could sponsor via Sally Struthers with no Federal Income Tax. To me, that would be around 12-15 thousand dollars a year from just federal income tax (not to mention Social Security)

So what you ask I do with all that money; well guess what; I would donate more to the united way then I already do! (I give about 500$ a year to them; (Which is not much in most peoples worlds, but to me is a lot to give to charity) in addition; there is foodshelfs, remember SPAM the foodshelfes drive in NC where we gave over 350 dollars of food to the local food shelf.

There are tons of successes just on these boards of people helping where they can just imagine without a FIT. Not everyone would go out and buy that brand new SUV. people ARE chairtable!!!!

[Richandler]

Darfur is the UN's problem. You have to ask yourself, why isn't the UN solving that problem today. They seem to be all the Democrats preach about, but nothing is being done.

[klamath]

Somalia is a good example of what happens to us trying to get involved in cultures we don't understand for humanitarian reasons. Blackhawk Down?

[axiomata]

First of all, of course individuals can and should provide humanitarian aid.

But I've got another question for you guys: the peace corps ... your thoughts?

[fj45lvr]

If you want to help darfur or feel it is against humanity to not help Darfur then HELP DARFUR!!! Call people, donate, volunteer.

Wouldn't it be amazing if people actually started to INDIVIDUALLY DO SOMETHING??

It's so much easier to just "ride the coat tails" of a "party" or "gov." knowing right well that the majority of the money and resources won't have to come from you at all!!

I'm sick of being forced to "contribute" to causes that are sometimes immoral as well as ill-conceived....awhile back we gave aid and I seem to remember the guys with the most firepower were the ones that ended up with the goods accomplishing a "resupply" for the fighters rather than aid to those in the crossfire.

Our Gov. enumerates powers and those that are not specified are left to the States and the people......"the people" have to do something if they must....lets keep the Gov. away from doling out our money (we're perfectly capable to do it ourselves!!).

[Broadlighter]

The word 'intervention' implies meddling in the other government's affairs. Humanitarian aid implies giving basic life sustaining assistance to people in need. That's why private charities are better suited for providing humanitarian assistance - they go in there with no axe to grind with the other country's government.