I’d like a discussion. Is it possible that doing good; aid, unemployment, etc. allow politicians to avoid making the hard decisions? Do aid organizations or unemployment benefits allow bad situations to continue by ameliorating the effects of those situations? If there were no outside, and, let’s face it, socialist, handouts would the resulting pressure spur permanent corrective actions?
If starvation is caused by drought, then one could argue sending food until the drought ends is good. But if starvation is caused by politics; say, not allowing genetically modified crops that will grow in the parched region, then what does the food aid accomplish but defusing the pressure that might instigate change?
Thoughts?
In a normal world, being hungry would cause most people to direct their anger at government, but we have the constant lying from the media brainwashing the public that all their problems stem from “capitalism”.
At the beginning of the 20th century this was almost precisely the argument used by "progressives" to undermine private charity, which had functioned well in this country for generations. They opposed private charity because "it let the government off the hook." In other words the operating assumption was/is that it is government's responsibility to feed and water everyone who falls on hard times. Bad idea. Very bad.
The way to get politicians to make hard decisions is by voting in responsible people. Of course, by this late date the electorate has become sufficiently depraved that that is unlikely to happen.