Use economics to end world hunger, says Pope

[Darrel]

It is not the global economy that keeps people poor, downtrodden and hungry, it is the local dictator.

There is no famine in democratic countries. It is when dictators and their cronies steal the money for development, fail to develop roads and trade facilities, and use hunger as a weapon that people starve.

Get rid of the brutal dictators and their corrupt henchmen and you will end hunger. Fail to do that, and you will accomplish nothing.

Sounds good to me. Even if the global economy did change like I think it eventualy will anyway. People could never reap the benefits if they are under some dictators thumb. My question for you Vern is this, should we as a country remove the dictators if it’s not in our countries so called interest? I think people dying under a dictators thumb by starvation would equate to a possible just war scenario. Maybe if the UN had some actual resolve they could do something.

-D

 

[HoppityRedux]

Sounds good to me. Even if the global economy did change like I think it eventualy will anyway. People could never reap the benefits if they are under some dictators thumb. My question for you Vern is this, should we as a country remove the dictators if it’s not in our countries so called interest? I think people dying under a dictators thumb by starvation would equate to a possible just war scenario. Maybe if the UN had some actual resolve they could do something.

-D

The UN can do nothing. Only member nations can actually do things.

 

[Darrel]

The UN can do nothing. Only member nations can actually do things.

Then what good is it? Whats your opinion of what the world should do about dictators that starve people? Is war justified when people are being starved, and who should do the fighting?

-D

 

[HoppityRedux]

Then what good is it? Whats your opinion of what the world should do about dictators that starve people? Is war justified when people are being starved, and who should do the fighting?

-D

I don’t know what good the UN is.

I can’t give any blanket prescription for dictators. Each is a unique situation.

War may or may not be justified if people are being starved. Again, one has to look at the individual situation. There are many variables involved.

War may be justifed, but that does not impose an obligation on anyone to fight it. Again, each situation is unique and must be addressed individually.

 

[Darrel]

I don’t know what good the UN is.

I can’t give any blanket prescription for dictators. Each is a unique situation.

War may or may not be justified if people are being starved. Again, one has to look at the individual situation. There are many variables involved.

War may be justifed, but that does not impose an obligation on anyone to fight it. Again, each situation is unique and must be addressed individually.

Yeah but then again if my next door neighbor was starving his wife and kids by force there might be many variables involved with me stopping it. I’m not downing your reply but whats the difference? Most nations are content to allow a dictators in other countries to starve people out or even allow a genocide to happen. We have seen it over and over again in history.

The world stands by while some nightmare scenario is carried out by some nut case regime. Then we see Iran developing nukes and the world is all upset and preparing to go to war at some point over it. I wonder how more people will die in the next 20 years. Will more die as the result of crazy dictators committing atrocities or will more die from Iranian nuclear assaults?

-D

 

[HoppityRedux]

Yeah but then again if my next door neighbor was starving his wife and kids by force there might be many variables involved with me stopping it. I’m not downing your reply but whats the difference? Most nations are content to allow a dictators in other countries to starve people out or even allow a genocide to happen. We have seen it over and over again in history.

The world stands by while some nightmare scenario is carried out by some nut case regime. Then we see Iran developing nukes and the world is all upset and preparing to go to war at some point over it. I wonder how more people will die in the next 20 years. Will more die as the result of crazy dictators committing atrocities or will more die from Iranian nuclear assaults?

-D

There could easily be many variables involved in your neighbor’s case, and I am sure you would consider them. The same is true in international situations.

The difference between the starving victims of a dictator and those willing to confront Iran is a matter of standing. The starving victims have no means to fight back or change the situation. The potential victims of Iran do have those means.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sounds good to me. Even if the global economy did change like I think it eventualy will anyway. People could never reap the benefits if they are under some dictators thumb. My question for you Vern is this, should we as a country remove the dictators if it’s not in our countries so called interest? I think people dying under a dictators thumb by starvation would equate to a possible just war scenario. Maybe if the UN had some actual resolve they could do something.

-D

If someone is murdering your neighbor, it would be no sin to come to his defense. In fact, you can make a case if you can save him – and there is no one else to save him, you have a duty. So from a theoloogical standpoint, I would say the Just War criteria can be met.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Unfortunately, we have seen how political factions in the United States can use the issue of war and peace to their own gain. That being the case, the United States almost certainly cannot muster the political will to throw out these brutal dictators.

And the UN will not.

 

[Darrel]

If someone is murdering your neighbor, it would be no sin to come to his defense. In fact, you can make a case if you can save him – and there is no one else to save him, you have a duty. So from a theoloogical standpoint, I would say the Just War criteria can be met.

Unfortunately, we have seen how political factions in the United States can use the issue of war and peace to their own gain. That being the case, the United States almost certainly cannot muster the political will to throw out these brutal dictators.

And the UN will not.

I agree,

We have an obligation to help people under such pressure and threat of death. The popular attitude towards helping other people in other countries is “hey… thats there problem… why should the US get involved”? The funny part is, if we took all Americans on a world tour of the nightmare scenarios that are going on, they would be so moved and horrified that they would probably be screaming for blood.

-D

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree,

We have an obligation to help people under such pressure and threat of death. The popular attitude towards helping other people in other countries is “hey… thats there problem… why should the US get involved”? The funny part is, if we took all Americans on a world tour of the nightmare scenarios that are going on, they would be so moved and horrified that they would probably be screaming for blood.

-D

I used to think this was an American Catholic phenomenon, but now I think it is widespread to most Americans (albeit we seem to have it worse than others) – the “Somebody should so something (but not me)” syndrome. Our idea of social justice is to get the government to act – not to act ourselves, for example.

And in this case, we see the same attitude – “Somebody should so something (but not us.”

 

[Nurse_Joy]

Darrel,

I recommend you have a nice read with Basic Economics as recommended here jimmyakin.org/2004/12/thomas_sowell_i.html.