What obligation do nations have to others?

[Apokalupsis]

What obligation does "nation A" have to nation Y, Z, or any other nation? Should nation allow free roam, privelages, and rights of the citizens of other nations (Y, Z, etc...)? Is "nation A" obligated to share in their resources? Or are they allowed to make a profit on their resources (which could be natural, produced, services, etc...). Is this unethical? Do they have to support less fortunate nations who haven't reached the level of success that "nation A" has? Does this obligation supersede that of the obligation it has to its own population and citizenry?

It would seem (from another thread), that many would argue that "nation A", if doing well, is obligated to assist other nations that aren't doing as well. It would seem, as if it is nation A's fault for doing so well, when others aren't or can't. Thus, is this a punishment for success?

I believe this may be a worldview clashing between liberalism and conservativism. But I will remove all stereotypes for the time being, and merely let the argument progress on its own.

I for one, do not believe that nation A has any obligation whatsoever to another nation. It's success or failures in relation to other nations have no bearing on any obligation.

This is not to say that a nation should offer aid or assistance if able. But this is quite different than suggesting that it is obligated (militarily, financially, technologically, servicing, etc...).

[RTShatto]

If "nation a" is obligated to serve "nation b" as an article of surrender, then it would be ok.

Or if "nation a" is under a treaty of free trade to "nations b and c", then that would be fine as well.

[Apokalupsis]

Right...so we have obligations under mutual agreement. IMO, this is a given...but I didn't state it wasn't in the opening post, so it's fine. Are there obligations that nation A has to nations it has not entered into a previously binding arrangement with?

[AntiMaterialist]

I think it is in our own best interest to help other nations get to a point where they value personal freedom and have little poverty. It is not because it will be financially beneficial to us, although that may happen. I think our need to help others is rooted in the fact that we, as humans, have a part of ourselves that we devote to others. Doing well for others makes us happy. Thus, I would not say we should help other nations because of obligation, but rather for personal satisfaction.

When we do help them, the old maxim of teaching a man to fish rather than fishing for him is definitely the rule to follow.

Or, we could just conquer and subjugate them just for the heck of it. Haven't you ever wished you were Ghinghis Kahn - the greatest conquerer in history?

As Yoda says: "Wars not make one great"

[FruitandNut]

If we are religious, we should look at the parable of the, 'Good Samaritan', the 'Beatitudes' and the Ten Commandments.

If we are not, then we should address personal and herd safety and survival issues, interests and our individual and collective 'immortality', through our 'selfish genes'.

[sjjs]

There is a more selfish reason for helping other people of course. If, for example, Rich Nation A were to help its neighbour, Poor Nation B then A would find it has less economic refugees to deal with and with B's burgeoning economy A would have a new market to sell to.

I don't know the details, but if Mexico were as rich as the US would you have so many illegals coming over?

[FruitandNut]

Yes, there is a philosophical angle that if we all help eachother to become affluent, then long term we all have a massive and boyant global market in which to trade and no need for economic or political migration. There are however several flies in that particular pot of ointment, two of which are greed and short termism. There is always something that spoils the balm.

AntiMaterialist: Is Ghinghis Kahn the greatest conquerer in history because he quit while undefeated? - Without knowing his limitations?

[WatsonGlenn]

Here is my answer to whether we should help other countries

In order for a commercial nation to survive and prosper there must be what historians refer to as a 'mudsill class.' This is a poor working class that does the grunt work for little pay. This group might be serfs or slaves, illegal aliens or child labor in Indochina but without them a capitalist society like the US cannot sustain itself.

These are also the theories of Thomas Malthus to contend with. Malthus believed helping the poor with welfare only exacerbated the problem. Giving unproductive members of society food allows them to breed more quickly and creates more poor people. He believed it was more merciful to let that level of society find its own level rather that attempt to sustain it with outside help.

Finally there is Jesus, who did say we should give to the poor but he also said the poor would always be amongst us. I think Jesus was referring to individual giving not government welfare when he said this.

[FruitandNut]

WatsonGlenn: Ah, but was Jesus making a reference to the innate greed in humanity? In some more than in others perhaps? Was it in effect some kind of indictment on the lack of generousity of the rich? The reference is ambiguous and we choose the interpretation that suits our personal agenda best. Taking a holistic view of Christ's teachings, I think I feel which of the interpretations is most likely.

[WatsonGlenn]

WatsonGlenn: Ah, but was Jesus making a reference to the innate greed in humanity? In some more than in others perhaps? Was it in effect some kind of indictment on the lack of generousity of the rich? The reference is ambiguous and we choose the interpretation that suits our personal agenda best. Taking a holistic view of Christ's teachings, I think I feel which of the interpretations is most likely.

What?

[FruitandNut]

Well I don't think He was giving His imprimatur to the status quo.

[MattNuenke]

I think our need to help others is rooted in the fact that we, as humans, have a part of ourselves that we devote to others. Doing well for others makes us happy. Thus, I would not say we should help other nations because of obligation, but rather for personal satisfaction.

There is a big difference between individuals helping others, and nations forcing all of their citizens to help other nations. I for one think that competition between nations is similar to competition between individuals. Each nation should stand or fail on their own. That is the only way that nations will be able to improve their forms of government, their cultures, or their innateness in terms of who those people are.

[chadn737]

Nations owe nobody anything. The sole role of the govt is to serve its people, not the people of the world. If an individual citizen feels a need to help those in other lands, let him do so individually. Governments should play as minimal role in such matters. For like the vast majority of things undertaken by the govt. its ineffective and an udder waste of resources.

[FruitandNut]

Chad737: 'Faith, Hope and Charity and the greatest of all is Charity.' - The Good Samaritan - and if none of that hits your button - hows about all the bad things that we have done to people and nations. Even if, and it is a big if, we don't owe them anything, we at least should not mercilessly exploit them. I see you have opted for a cross as your symbol, who carries yours for you? I can 'see' the word JUSTIFICATION writ large upon your forehead.

ps. Hey, you just below, WatsonGlenn: No, I give my money, mind you an aweful lot of what people call their money could be challeged on moral grounds.
The gross size of some of the Golden Handshakes, the win-win share options, insider dealing and of course there is the puzzling matter of the Golden Parachute when 'we' screw-up.

[WatsonGlenn]

There is a big difference between individuals helping others, and nations forcing all of their citizens to help other nations.

I agree. Your statement reminds me of an old joke.

A liberal is someone who is so compassionate towards the poor that he is willing to give them YOUR last dollar.

[Meng Bomin]

I don't think that nations have any obligations to any nations which they have no bonds to. Often times nations will take action, be it positive or negative, towards other nations because the leaders think that action will benefit their nation. Nearly all actions taken by nations benefit either the nation itself or its leaders.

[FruitandNut]

Neverending: Just stop, think and examine all the threads at link 'us' to many nations.

Why don't all of those who are just in it for themselves want to describe themselves with dictoinary accuracy - selfish - yes, the word is, selfish.
Play around with all the justification and sets of blinkers you like - you are selfish - if ever you find yourself in need, I hope it is a Good Samaritan and not a clone of your good self that happens along.

[Meng Bomin]

Just stop, think and examine all the threads at link 'us' to many nations. As I said, nations follow by their interests. Our interests are longterm as well as short term. If we "violate" those threads, there will be consequences.

Play around with all the justification and sets of blinkers you like - you are selfish - if ever you find yourself in need, I hope it is a Good Samaritan and not a clone of your good self that happens along.
I never said that this it applied to individuals, just nations. Nations consist of many individuals, so there is no real comparison. Certainly a person has an obligation to help another person in trouble, but this does necessarily hold true for nations.

[chadn737]

Chad737: 'Faith, Hope and Charity and the greatest of all is Charity.' - The Good Samaritan - and if none of that hits your button - hows about all the bad things that we have done to people and nations. Even if, and it is a big if, we don't owe them anything, we at least should not mercilessly exploit them. I see you have opted for a cross as your symbol, who carries yours for you? I can 'see' the word JUSTIFICATION writ large upon your forehead.

Hey F&N, why dont you come down off of that high horse of yours for just one moment. Are you actually judging my faith? And I absolutely love how you have twisted that verse.

Instead of taking what I have said out of context why dont you address what I have actually said.

Isnt charity a voluntary giving? What is voluntary about the spending of our tax dollars without our consent. Whats more whats so holy and glorious about this suppossed charity when it gets sent to govts that turn around and use it to fund their own private agendas?

I view this from a practical aspect.

1. Charity is only good if it comes from the heart, without any stipulations. Govt aid fits neither.

2. Charity should be effective and not get used for counter productive measures like blowing people up. Govts screw this up as well.

3. The role of the govt is to serve and protect its people, not take their money and give it to despots who then slaughter their own people. Or leave the food rotting in the warehouse while everyone starves.

Anybody remember back a year or two when the US sent tons of GMO grain to I believe either Zaire or Zimbabwe andthe govt their denied it to the people because it was GMOs. The people were literaly starving to death and they rather them slowy rot then risk their lives with GMO crops. Thats the type of crap that gets me. Govts are worthless when it comes to acts of charity. Leave it to the individual, not big brother.

[MattNuenke]

Why don't all of those who are just in it for themselves want to describe themselves with dictoinary accuracy - selfish - …. I hope it is a Good Samaritan and not a clone of your good self that happens along.

I think you have hit upon the weakness in our inability to separate others in another country from neighbors in our own. Of course, everyone would want to help a neighbor in need because we evolved as members of a tribe that relied on others to survive.

But, it is this very tribalism that dictates that tribal unity stops at the borders. If rich nations continually bail out poor nations, the poor nations will never evolve to a level where they are self-sufficient.

What I see in your desire to be among "Good Samaritans" is a cry for help - a need to feel that you are not alone. What you claim are selfish people, I would say are people who have self esteem to see the difference between pity and fear - we are able to separate groups of people into "those like us" and "those others." Humans everywhere delineate between "us" and "them" tribal units.

In essence then, your "compassion" is really what is known as "terror management." People who are religious or overly compassionate are trying to find a way out of the inevitable - ultimate death.

Many of us empirical atheists have lost our ability to lie to ourselves about what our future holds, so we work at making the best of a bad thought, and we deal with it as best we can, limiting compassion where it is deserved. If we were selfish, we wouldn't be wasting time debating on the Net, we would be out making money. You are confusing selfishness with fairness. Many of us just think it is unfair or unjust for our wealthy elite leaders to take money from everyone they rule and give it to other nations, for their own self-aggrandizement.

Now, let's look at it another way. Very few people object to one nation helping another that has just suffered a "natural" catastrophe - like earth quakes. What many of us object to is the continuous aid that is transferred from developed nations to backward nations, and seeing little in the way of progress. It is like having a sibling who is on heroin, and you just keep giving them money. At some point, the best thing is to abandon them because they are not deserving of any more help. It is a judgment call, but one that humans have made for millions years. If there was a "berserkr" in the tribe, that person was eventually banished or killed because there was no controlling them. The same must be applied to individuals and to nations. There are some that are just failures, and no amount of compassion is going to heal them. They must sink and die away and be replaced with a new political order that can sustain them.

Overly compassionate behavior is not being unselfish, it is being weak. Mother Theresa was not a saint, she was a coward running from her own terror of death. In the end, she did little to change the world for the better.

[CC]

I just wanted to share this: (please excuse me if this is sliding off the topic.

Saturday night I was driving back home in my full-sized van along with my wife. We were returning from a tournament and had about another 100 miles to go to get home. It was almost dusk as we rolled along through the middle of nowhere when the back right tire blew out. I limped off the interstate and could see the nearest town was 15 miles away and (as most small towns), no service trucks.

I called 911 dispatcher, (for those not aware I am parapalegic and use a wheelchair) explained that my wife could not break the lugnuts loose nor figure out how to remove the spare from under the van. I was told that they would call the state police to assist me. (something I already know that in this state is a joke) After half an hour I called back and was told it may be "some time" before a trooper could reach me.

So, (I was wearing white pants) and slid out of my chair and pulled myself under my van to remove the spare. Only the darn thing was hooked to a cable that was above my reach (I cannot do situps because of my injury so I could not "lift" my torso and see above the tire.

By now the sun was seting and I began to think to myself that our trip had just went south. Right about then a car exited the highway and pulled in behind us. A man in his 30's got out and after even helping me back into my chair, (I can do it alone but when wearing pants with an elastic waist I inadverdantly pull them down!) Then he managed to figure out how to remove the spare.

We had been conversating as he toiled and somehow or other he asked me if I had prayed to god for help. he said it jokingly but the fact that he had stopped working told me he did expect an answer.
I replied, "No."
Then he looked at me a little more deeply and asked "Are you a christian?" I have to admit that I thought I could see my good sumaritan leaving if I answered honestly. I thought about lying but then I could not. I simply could not lie to a guy that had taken the time to come to my aid. I replied, "No, I am an atheist, but I am a very principled man." He smiled a bit and I thought he would turn away from us. Instead, he simply set about jacking up the van, removing the ruined tire and putting on the spare as we continued to chat about casual things. I told him to give me his name (which he did). I asked which town he was from and explaned to him that a good friend of mine was a long-time deputy sheriff in that county and I would put in a good word for him.. He then told me that it was not necessary, he always obeyed the traffic laws.
He finished the work, getting dirty of course in the process. I offered him a 20 dollar bill though I was sure he would not accept it. Of course he did not, instead he said, "All I ask is that you give your beliefs in god some more thought, HE sent me to you." He smiled, shook hands, joined his family in his car and drove away, the entire family who had been waiting smiling and waving.

In the course of things he had mentioned the name of his church. Today I have written a check for $100 and am sending it to his church in his name along with a note of praise for his unselfish act. No, it won't change my beliefs about god. But it has certainly caused me to be more appreciative of those who do a lot more "doing" than talking when it comes to their faith.........score one for the christians!.........(I apoligize to bore you all but since I condemn most religions I feel I owed it to all believers to share this)............:O)

[Meng Bomin]

Wow. That was a nice story. I wish there were more people like him, although I would not want to be asked to convert, but I don't think it would bother me too much, considering the great deed done.:)

[CC]

He did not ask me to convert, just to give my beliefs on faith in god some more thought...............:O)

[Apokalupsis]

wow....seriously off topic, but a great story nonetheless. See? We aren't all wackos. :)

[FruitandNut]

Have no fear Apok, the SAS, in the guise of FruitandNut will guide the righteous and not so righteous back onto the straight and narrow.


The only obligations are self engineered for a multitude of reasons.

Try this 'Pick and Mix', you will probably find something to your taste:-

1/ Religious. 2/ Humanitarian. 3/ Might be useful markets and allies in the future. 4/ Lowers the risk of them getting involved with people we don't approve of. 5/ Might have useful strategic materials we can negotiate from a position of strength, therefore we can press for immorally low price deals. 6/ Maybe oil (see 5)! 7/ If all else fails, a little largesse can massage that personal feeling of success and superiority.

[FruitandNut]

Tony Blair appears to be engaging political 'going for broke' mode in support of US troops and Administration. Despite over 80% poll saying Brits. 'fearful' of US tactics in their sector, breaking news says that he is OKing sending another 2 battalions of troops plus their logistic support, approx 1,300 more. If the US led offensive on Faluja and Sadr City goes SNAFU and Brit. body bags start coming home with greater frequency, his term in office is going to be severely curtailed.

[PallidaMors]

Have no fear Apok, the SAS, in the guise of FruitandNut will guide the righteous and not so righteous back onto the straight and narrow.

Good luck FN. The Not-So-Righteous fear not the SAS. :p