Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You already said that the only reason you posted the article was to take the UN down a notch or two since it is held in such high esteem.
|
The reason why I posted the article was to make clear that just because something is done under the auspices of the UN does not make it righteous or beyond reproach.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If there was enough food there, you wouldn't have people prostituting themselves to avoid starvation. Or are you going to pretend now that the UN is responsible for the famine and poverty there?
|
If there is not enough food there, how are the soldiers using it as sexual currency?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You and I agree that there is government waste, though not necessarily about what it is. But that's not the question I asked -- I asked whether you'd pay more in taxes to support more food aid to these people. Your answer is "no, I wouldn't pay more in taxes, but I would take money away from someone else to whom other citizens have decided to give tax money." In other words, this sort of exploitation bothers you so much that you're willing to spend other people's money to stop it, but not your own.
The whole UN angle really threw you off your game here. Usually you'd be reaffirming the sanctity of the contracts formed between the poor Congolese and the peacekeepers, and saying that all we need is some tax cuts in the Congo to set the stage for job creation.
|
My statement that I would not pay more taxes should not be viewed in a vacuum. If I believed that there was zero to little waste, an increase in taxes would be more palatable, though I would much prefer charitable donations as those are voluntary and would likely guarantee that more net dollars were used for their intended purpose.
Your statements as to ownership of tax dollars are inherently inconsistent. I'll let you figure that one out on your own.
The UN angle did nothing to my game. I have already stated that in general freedom to contract would be my position, but in this case there is no real choice in the matter - the women can either prostitute themselves or starve and I do not see this as a policy the merits freedom of contract protection.
