Okay, how's this: If I want to give money to the Rich rulers of Poor nations, I will do so of my own choice.
Because taking my money from me at gunpoint to subsidize foreign kleptocrats is antithetical to Capitalism.
And I am consummately Capitalist, so I think that's a bad thing.
Saying "Capitalism moves money from the Poor to the Rich, and that's sorta like Foreign Aid" is morally tantamount to saying, "Consensual Sex is sorta like Forcible Rape". Well, yeah, there are certain mechanical similarities involved, but there is that funky little idea of consent separating the two.
And don't expect me to buy into "majoritarian consent" for a moment either. Even if most Americans were in love with the idea of Foreign Aid (and we ain't), nine out of ten folks voting that a gal should be forcibly raped does not turn the intercourse into consensual sex, any way you wanna swing it.
But it has worked. Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work? It doesn't work perfectly but it still works. It sounds like you're criticizing specific implementations, but *not* the general policy.
C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".
Well, yeah, they "work" to extract money from the taxpayer to benefit the corporation, who then hires more lobbyists to get more subsidies (essentially same thing with personal Welfare, save that Votes are purchased, not Lobbyists). That is how these subsidies "work", and how they stay in place.
Same with Foreign Aid.
But just because you take someone's money, and give it to someone else, and the recipient says, "Thanks, could I have some more? I'll contribute to your re-election campaign if you'll vote me more cash," does not mean that the program is "working" in any sort of capitalistic or otherwise beneficial sense.
Capitalism depends on the Rule of Property Law.
ALL Income Transfer Payments subvert the Rule of Property Law.
Every example you have given is to some extent bad policy. So how is this is a general critique of foreign aid or specific policies toward Israel?
Israel, without US foreign aid, would probably still hold the Sinai, and would be forced by economic reality to be more Capitalistic.
That should suffice to speak to Israel's benefit (although the statist elites who receive Foreign Aid would be out some cash; and, oh, how my heart bleeds for the Israeli Socialist-Labour Party if we cut their subsidies, boo-hoo). Shall I also detail the benefits to the US of curtailing Foreign Aid, or is it enough between Friends of Israel (as I count myself) to speak to Israel's benefit?
You are confusing specific implementation with the general policy. You are also making judgements concerning what would have occurred *without* foreign aid. This is a very complex subject. Are the policy wonks in the State Department sometimes wrong? Of course, but I would rather trust this pragmatic decision making rather than any sort of idealism based on isolationism.
Why not also, then, trust the "pragmatism" of the Treasury and the Commerce Departments to plan your economic Life for you, over any sort of idealistic, non-interventionist Capitalism?
Big Brother knows best, doesn't he? And Big Brother is never interested in handing out a billion in taxpayer Foreign Aid, to get back ten million in campaign contributions for himself, right, because Big Brother can be trusted, can't he?
As for myself, two gin-scented tears trickle down the sides of my nose. It is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over My Self. I trust Big Brother.
I love Big Brother.
C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".
Huh? Now you're beginning to commit logical fallacies. Try reading up on foreign policy journals and articles. The recommendations almost always involve either some financial aid or intervention. Do you really think that these experts are *all* wrong but you with your overly simplistic idealism are correct?
LOL.
Talk about insane...
Why not also, then, trust the "pragmatism" of the Treasury and the Commerce Departments to plan your economic Life for you, over any sort of idealistic, non-interventionist Capitalism?
Because the "actors" in each case are entirely different. Foreign policy "actors" typically are nations, while economic "actors" are typically individuals. Surely you see the difference. The most ideal entity to implement decision making for an individual is the individual himself. There will always be decision making concerning state actions, so your point fails.
Comparing capitalism to foreign policy is of course a poor method of making sense of either of them.
As for myself, two gin-scented tears trickle down the sides of my nose. It is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over My Self. I trust Big Brother.
I love Big Brother.
Hehe.
I do appreciate your sentiments here. Yes, I believe there is corruption in "statecraft", but I also believe that there are honest State Department "experts" who still guide policy making. I think the difference here is that without (foreign) policy makers who exactly would be making these decisions?
You almost sound like an anarchist...