If foreign aid is the process of taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries, then Band Aid is the process of taking money from gullible people in rich countries and giving it to cunning people in those same rich countries:
The new version of the Band Aid song Do They Know It’s Christmas? has gone straight in at number one in the UK singles chart.
The charity record is also tipped to be this year’s Christmas number one.
Two decades after the original Big Top and the Circus of Guilt comes rolling into town again though I am relieved to note the distinct absence of national fanfare and clappy-happy exultation that accompanied the first great feast of famine back in the mid 1980’s. Twenty years on and my stomach is still churning from the experience.
But this time I have even further cause for complaint. Christmas? Christmas??!!. Just what message are these insensitive, monocultural, fascist bastards trying to send here? This is just Vocal Imperialism, pure and simple.
Less pure and less simple, I wager, are the motives of the organisers. Two of the prominent names are Bob Geldof and Bono, both ageing rockers who have managed to sustain lucrative careers long past their sell-by dates by successfully reinventing themselves as saviours of the planet. Hey, it’s all about getting down the with kidz, man. Or something. To me, they have more in common with American TV evangelists. They also promise salvation provided you send them your money.
Lining up alongside them are a rabble of pasty-faced no-talents, has-beens, wannabes and never-wases: a million mediocrity march. But together they can make a big noise and that matters a lot in an industry where the noisiest wins. In fact, if they owe anything to Africans at all then it is not spurious Christmas wishes but a royalty cheque and a big thank you for being the best marketing tool in the world.
I will be keeping my loose change in my pocket where it belongs this festive season. I have not lost a single night of sleep over Africa and I never will. In fact, I could even cash in on my conscience by starting a record label called ‘Truth in Music’. My first single release will be called ‘I Don’t Give a Hoot About The Starving’. All profits go to me. It may not be the stuff that dreams are made on but, by George, it will have integrity.
Sigh. David, I know you’re the local scrooge and are playing that role to the hilt, but that last paragraph is the kind of statement that promotes the stereotypical image of libertarians as utterly insensitive “I got mine Jack, so screw you” jerks. Yes, Geldof and Bono and their ilk are tools and Live Aid has never been anything more than a useless token gesture (at best) for people to pat themselves on the back over for being so “caring”. But “I don’t give a hoot about the starving” just makes you look like as much of a moral idiot as them, your blessed integrity aside.
We know what will help Africa: getting rid of depotsic kleptocrats and encouraging free trade so that they can help themselves. We need to be shouting that from the rooftops and yes, couching it in those touchy-feely humanitarian terms you’re so terrified of if need be, if we’re actually interested in getting things done.
David, this post makes you sound like a complete arsehole. Why on earth did you write it?
“I will be keeping my loose change in my pocket where it belongs this festive season.” Can you tell us why it belongs there? Doesn’t it belong to some good cause like the campaign against ID cards or the society for the promotion of libertarianism. Or RNIB or something? We should be celebrating people giving freely to those causes they support, instead of the gvt. silently diverting our taxes to the ‘charity’ of their choice.
“Lining up alongside them are a rabble of pasty-faced no-talents, has-beens, wannabes and never-wases” – Ah! So _that’s_ why they are so rich! Because they are talentless people who never made it. And there was me thinking that the music industry was capitalism in action, people rewarding in cash those that produced goods and services they wanted. I guess the rise to popular adoration of these fools is the fault of our state-run entertainment industry! Shurely capitalism could never produce this calamitous result!
“This is just Vocal Imperialism, pure and simple.”
This is a meaningless sentence, pure and simple. But I bet you think ‘Vocal Imperialism’ is a really clever phrase. Otherwise you wouldn’t have put it in Pointless Caps.
Merry Christmas.
J
Matt McIntosh – Twaddle.
David’s post is outstanding, even for him, and that phrase “the million mediocrity march” is destined to be picked up and used.
I will buy David’s record.
You say: “We know what will help Africa: getting rid of depotsic kleptocrats and encouraging free trade so that they can help themselves.”
Yes, that would help. So the Africans should get rid of the despotic kleptomaniacs they allow to live in palaces with gold bathtubs and swank about the designer boutiques of Paris. It’s not our job to get rid of them any more than it’s my job to take my neighbour’s garbage to the tip. They deduce that said kleptomaniacs, wives, mistresses, family members and general hangers on are bleeding them dry. They should fix it, as other countries have got rid of dictators throughout history – a few recent examples being the Marcoses ejected from power in the Philippines and the decline and sudden death of the Ceaucescus. And if an entity can be styled a dictator, I notice the Stasi is dead and gone.
I agree with you about opening our markets, however.
David, with a history of brilliant posts, this is one of your best.
God, thanks for saying this. All they manage to achieve, if anything, is putting over a massive guilt picnic and funnelling lots of money into the gold bathtubs of turd-world despots. If somebody really wants to make a difference, the only practical way is to haul your own butt over there and get your hands dirty, and there are some courageous people who do just that. Throwing a pile of money at it just to feel good doesn’t hold water with me.
david carr is tired of life. you see it in everything he writes. verity is the real swiftian genius on this site – she takes the piss very sweetly.
Monique – well said.
It was the last sentence which made me guffaw and almost get thrown out of the library…”I don’t give a hoot about the starving”! Inspired, even if not morally endearing. Verity’s garbage analysis is fairly clever – but if my neighbour couldn’t take out the garbage I would be at least interested in ways we could allow or help her get her garbage sorted.
I found the post a good way of putting into words my frustration by taking the idea to an extreme. Perfect polemicism.
The worst thing about Band Aid is the smug self-satisfaction of those who think they are saving the world. If people care that much this is my advice. Don’t buy it, forcing all the cost, pollution and inefficiency of production to take place (when it would only sit in storage for twenty years until there’s an *even* worse version out) and give the money you would have paid straight to a charity that isn’t a once-every-ten-years wonder.
Well put. The worst thing about agony-palooza is that people actually think that their donations are really helping, while most of it “falls off the back of the lorry” on the way.
As Sam Kineson said: send luggage.
Spod, I don’t like being called ‘sweet’, so can it.
If you’re implying I’m taking the piss out of David because he espouses a point of view that displeases you, or for any other reason, you are wrong.
yeah i’m jesting verity, dear. you libertarians are all equally vile.
i call that a homerun. great post
i call that a homerun. great post
Great post, indeed. Very refreshing. Thank you.
Verity, I’m not going to bother arguing morality with you because I can tell we’ve got totally different concepts of human decency. So I’ll just make two points that even an “I got mine Jack, so screw you” person like yourself can probably understand and maybe agree with:
1. Dictators are a public bad. They’re not good for anybody and impede the market. As such in principle there’s nothing wrong with getting rid of them forcibly from the outside if the cost/benefit analysis suggests it would be worthwhile.
2. If you think that the Zimbabweans currently have the means to topple Robert Mugabe all by themselves, you’re out of touch with reality on this one. He has weapons. They mostly don’t. Makes it a little hard, ne?
3. Even if you don’t feel there’s a necessary moral obligation to help these people through whatever means (which is a defensible position), saying you flat out don’t care one whit about starving and oppressed people would seem to go against what I take to be the whole libertarian spirit — that everybody (ideally) deserves a shot at controlling their own life and being absent from coercion and forced poverty. But maybe you don’t actually believe that.
4. Packaging is important — if you actually want people to come around to seeing that libertarian ideas are good, saying stupid things that make them dismiss you out of hand because they think you’re an inhuman jerk is not going to do anyone any good. With comments like David’s and yours, you’re shooting yourselves in the foot by playing right into the caricature of libertarians as coldhearted pricks.
Whoops, two points turned into four. I can count, really… 🙂
And just by the by, let me say that I do understand everyone’s frustration with this nonsense. I know, it makes you grind your teeth to watch these pinheaded pious pricks prancing about and acting like they’re making some kind of difference, and acting as if anyone who naysays this sort of thing as ineffectual is a bah-humbugging jerk. But please please please don’t let the cynicism this inspires in you drive you too far in the opposite direction.
We need to be shouting that from the rooftops and yes, couching it in those touchy-feely humanitarian terms you’re so terrified of if need be, if we’re actually interested in getting things done.
Sod that. There’s enough toadying Conservatives in the world already, but not nearly enough David Carrs. Bravo David.
Don’t be so pompous. Try to develop a sense of irony. Someone (possibly yourself) alluded to Swift earlier, without recognising that this explains D. Carr’s apparent heartlessness. I don’t know him, but doubt very much if he wants to eat roast baby… Loathsome displays of cant and self-regard such as Live Aid – a massive PR job for statist intervention too – need to be pilloried vigorously, with a certain amount of invective. As for playing to the gallery by dumbing down the level of debate for PR purposes, I imagine this is one of the many aspects of our present crop of career politicians that libertarians loathe…
I’m sure David’s post was a simple troll, designed to get our moral juices flowing….alternatively, his team lost today and he was feeling dyspeptic.
As Libertarians advocate charitable works over state “good works”, the only argument is over ways and means, presumably.
If David really means his “sod the starving, I couldn’t give a damn”, it just means he is a space alien that has infiltrated this board somehow, and is not a genuine human being at all. In any event, his position cannot be argued with, but only deplored.
Given that he is palpably intelligent, this is the only explanation, save equally deplorable socio-pathology.
I prefer to consider it a troll.
If David is merely being ironic, then I apologize to him for missing the joke. But everything else I’ve said still stands.
Matt McIntosh writes:
“But everything else I’ve said still stands.”
Shame. It was sanctimonious twaddle.
I’m with David Carr and thoroughly bloody bored by the liberal obsession with Africa, which, here in the UK, is currently bordering on a pathological clinical condition.
There are half a dozen of these pop philanthropists who could buy the Third World and have it redecorated.
GCooper:
Having a concern for the poorer and alienated can perhaps be reconciled even with your overweening Self Interest.
A lot of terrorist ideology is based upon being excluded from a lot of what the “West” takes for granted. Some people here advocate a trickle-down of wealth and education to developing countries like those in Africa. Some think it might need to be more structured that that. In any event, ignore those outside your heavily-defended gated communities at your peril, whether they come from inside our outside of your borders….One day, however much you fetishistically polish your semi-automatic weapons, they could eat your lunch…
I want to go back a moment and address Tony H:
It’s not about “dumbing things down.” What I’m talking about is framing issues in such a way as to take advantage of people’s predispositions, making it easier to bring them around to supporting your point of view. Perry de Havilland has mentioned this sort of thing before.
John Ellis writes:
“One day, however much you fetishistically polish your semi-automatic weapons, they could eat your lunch…”
Codswallop!
Wasn’t one of your fellow travellers only just telling us how it was quite impossible for Zimbabweans to overthrow that genocidal butcher Mugabe?
And thanks for the typical liberal ad hominem chittering about “self-interest” – something you infer without a shred of evidence.
I’m interested in many, many things. Liberals and their post-colonial guilt-trip are not featured on the list, however..
I hardly think Bono is past his sell-by date. Despite his megalomania, U2 continues to put out good music. Their appearance on SNL – real honest-to-God guitar rock as an antedote to Ashlee Simpson schlock – was as lively, engaging, and real performance as that show has ever seen, let alone recently among these godawful pop stars
Peter – V good!
John Ellis: A lot of terrorist ideology is based upon being excluded from a lot of what the “West” takes for granted.
No, actually, none of it is. Terrorist ideology, if there is such a thing, is “based upon” their belief that the decadent, self-directed West is an insult to their religion and we need to be taught a lesson. Please try to read and understand the argument, John Ellis. This is nothing to do with the ‘have-nots’ in their air-conditioned homes in Saudi Arabia (electricity is free) and filling their big cars with gas at 10 cents a gallon.
G Cooper, I don’t believe in a liberal post colonial ‘guilt trip’ for one minute. The ‘guilt trip’ is a vehicle – an important one, but there are others – to push for the destruction of the englightened West by traitors in our midst.
As to the Africans, they have allowed themselves to be held in the position they’re in. In the first flush of freedom, I could forgive them if they made plenty of mistakes in their leaders, but got rid of them. But they haven’t. They’re passive. They’re dependent on aid from the tranzis. Unlike the Filippinos, who got rid of an equally powerful dictator. Africa’s been free for around 50 years now. They’re a rich continent and they’re still a mess and they’re still allowing themselves to be governed by kleptomaniacs. That is their problem; not mine.
But seriously folks, are they really that poor? Nigeria is immensely wealthy. Every day I get emails from individuals who need my assistance to get upwards of US$50m out of the country. Fifty mill here, fifty mill there, pretty soon it adds up.
I can’t imagine libertarianism gaining any converts (that anyone else would want) from something like this.
It’s one thing to point out how imperfectly well-intentioned but naive charities work. It’s one thing to point out that foreign aid usually doesn’t help poor countries much. I myself think the _purpose_ of foreign aid from the point of view of donating countries is to induce dependence and corruption in client states, but that’s a minority view.
It’s quite another to profess indifference to the suffering of innocent people and to view it as a rich source of humor. Unlessl, of course, you think it’s their own damn fault for not having the sense to have been born in a more affluent and stable society as you did.
The solution to Africa’s numerous problems is not largesse from the guilt-ridden west. The problems in Africa are, this far removed from independence, of Africa’s making and unless the west intends to recolonise the place, Africa will have to figure out how to solve them. Giving aid only subsidises the dictators, it does not help the people who suffer – and in many cases actually makes things worse.
African culture seems incapable of overthrowing the tyrant – I can’t think of one instance of popular revolution anywhere in black Africa, though I’m happy to be corrected if someone knows differently. Much of African culture seems to revere and support the local strong man, irrespective of how he came to power. The fact that he has power is the thing which is important. At the same time, they often have an excessive and frankly pernicious respect for the opinions of their elders, to the extent that the opinions of single a 90 year old man living in a tin shack can carry more weight than the policy of an elected local government (this happens, really). Old men are inherently conservative, so all in all you won’t get much progress or change with this kind of culture.
It is foolish to expect the people of Zimbabwe, for example, to rise up in revolt against Mugabe. The army might well remove him (and ultimately probably will, I suspect), but I doubt there would ever be a popular revolution, however insane his policy and however many starve.
Is it right, then, to try to provide some relief, both to one’s own conscience and to the suffering Africans, by donating money? I think not, for a variety of reasons some of which have been outlined above and others David Carr lists in his article.
Having said that, there is no doubt that libertarians are very easy to accuse of being selfish to the point of being anti-social. However correct David’s point of view may be, and I do agree with it, it is expressed in a manner which is likely to be distasteful to most people.
It is not perhaps a question of dumbing down, but perhaps of making the unpalatable truth a little easier for the majority to swallow. It seems that many in the west, particularly in Britain for some reason, subscribe to what might be called the ‘fluffy bunny’ view of nature, and to its political analogue of considering humans rational creatures who can be dissuaded from brutality simply by long and earnest conversations. It is a depressing but accurate fact that African dictators are a particularly unpleasant lot, even by the global standards of autarky, and they will only stop doing what they do if there is a powerful incentive.
Aid removes this incentive, because by providing food and medicine it gives the dictator a further lever over his subjects – the dictator controls the distribution, so be nice to him and you might get fed. It also excuses lamentable and kleptomaniacal fiscal policy by removing the economic imperative to run a reasonably sound economy – the guilt-tripping west will always bail out the dictator. The local people will simply not stand up to the dictator, at least not in enough numbers and not with enough confidence to remove or even remotely unsettle him – he therefore knows perfectly well he can do pretty much what he wants. If the west actually wants to do something, it needs to forcibly remove the corrupt dictators and institute, again by force if necessary, sound government. This means in practice that several African countries would have to become western protectorates and hopefully the others would learn the lesson. This unlikely to happen, of course, so the west should just button it and let Africa fix its own problems or destroy itself in the process. The west did not cause most of Africa’s problems, and Africa has no excuse – nearly two generations after independence – to keep on blaming us.
The political trick, of course, is to find a nice way of saying this. As you will imagine, it’s a lot easier to release a fund-raising record and say “give us yer f***ing money.”
EG
Hmmm, at the risk of dissing a fellow scribe and friend, I thought David’s post was way too harsh. Geldof has actually made some pretty sound comments about what utter bastards many African leaders are. He’s a pretty bright fellow and non-PC on a lot of issues. Bono and Chris Martin, on the other hand, are boobs.
Mind you, if the rockers really wanted to be radical, caring and right, they should make a song singing the praises of free trade, sort of like setting the views of Cobden and Bright to music. Perhaps Rush should compose it.
I have not lost a single night of sleep over Africa and I never will.
Certainly these sentiments from David seem odd without futher explanation from him. He’s right about the uselessness of aid of course and there is no need for him to worry over the plight of Africans if he chooses not to, but David certainly does seem to concern himself with suffering and abuses in other parts of the world. He was very concerned, I recall, that women in Afghanistan be liberated and educated.
I suspect here that David has got a little carried away with his rhetoric, something of which we are all occasionally guilty.
Only partially off-topic, the vanity of kids in bands never ceases to amaze me.
Stuck in the car one day recently I listened to some Welsh berk from the appalling Manic Street Preachers delivering his half-baked Marxist opinions as though they were holy writ (this is the band that grovelled to that murdering bastard Castro, by the way.) His justification for the relevance of his opinions over that of his (equally misguided) peers was that he has ‘a degree in politics’. He mentioned this twice, clearly still very, very impressed.
It’s an interesting conjunction of delusions. The first, that a contemporary degree from a British university in anything but science (and maybe even then) is worth anything. The second, that the ability to write a song and thrash a guitar adds relevance to someone’s political opinions.
Strange how these ‘celebs’ are very ‘long-suited’ in altruism, but seem to be very short on personal philanthropy… other than for tax purposes, of course.
Like socialists everywhere, they are very good at telling us how to spend our money, but are quite parsimonious when it comes to spending their own, just another version of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.
Amazing how many critics of this posting have an .aol or an .edu, suffix in their IP addresses. Do you think this is an indicator of anything significant?
Ernest, what on earth do you mean or are you trying to imply? That the critics are all idiots? Er, try actually arguing your point, if there is one, rather than make cheap shots.
The reason I have done the rare thing of criticising David Carr – one of the nicest and cleverest of men – is the tone of his piece. It was below his usual top-notch standards. I think he probably will agree in the cold light of day, if I know the fellow.
Ernest, yes. Normally it indicates a “Save the whales, kill the babies” Liberal.
Charity is it’s own reward. Of course most (I’m an optimist) Charties are bogus.
Look on the positive side. Crooks have to eat too. If they wen’t stealing money thru Charity, they would be using some other sort of Con. Or weapons.
Jonathan,
No criticism intended, just a fleeting observation…it could be that our younger folk are perhaps ‘more caring’, .aol and .edu being more likely to indicate a more ‘modern’ , or perhaps younger approach to life, with their more ready acceptance of celeb opinion…
Perhaps my inclusion of the .aol suffix led you to the ‘idiot’ conclusion…
Every day I get emails from individuals who need my assistance to get upwards of US$50m out of the country. Fifty mill here, fifty mill there, pretty soon it adds up.
*sigh* Verity I know you’re not well informed about… well, much really, but you do *know* that this is a con. There is no $50m?
The trouble is, it is dreadfully hard to sort fact and fiction in your posts.
Cobden has the answers for Africa.
I think David’s post raised some extremely good points that some people are missing in their attempt to seem morally outraged. The best way for Africa to sort itself out is to do just that. If the West keeps pumping money into the continent nothing will ever change.
Geldof is genuine in his concern about Africa and I don’t fault him for that. However, his actions are probably doing more harm than good. Every time Africa has a problem they just get out their begging bowls (ably aided by the guilt industry) and bum for money. Never mind that most of the despots in charge are kept there by the dictator-apologist UN.
Keep your money in your pocket or spend on something thats commercial. Free markets and capitalism are what going to save Africa not hand-outs. If called leading by example.
JP: How about taking a crack at writing that song yourself mate. The last set of lyrics you pumped out are pretty damn good.
Daveon wrote (in respect of a post by Verity):
‘Every day I get emails from individuals who need my assistance to get upwards of US$50m out of the country. Fifty mill here, fifty mill there, pretty soon it adds up.
*sigh* Verity I know you’re not well informed about… well, much really, but you do *know* that this is a con. There is no $50m?
The trouble is, it is dreadfully hard to sort fact and fiction in your posts.’
Sorry for that unpleasant noise – it was the sound of my gut busting as I was overcome by paroxysms of laughter. Daveon – do you need any help getting your foot out of your mouth, or can you manage?
On the more serious matter of David Carr’s post – yes, some of it is in questionable taste. But what did you expect? This latest round of desperately-worthy fundraising is 20 years from the last one, during which time, nothing has gotten any better in Africa, some things have gotten considerably worse, and several millions have died needlessly. Stupidity is sometimes defined as doing the same thing, in the same way, and expecting the outcome to be different. Watching the latest generation of self-absorbed celebrities gearing up to repeat the stupidity of the previous generation would be enough to make anyone somewhat – cynical.
Meanwhile, in the Arizona desert, the serried ranks of C54’s slumber peacefully, ready but un-called-upon to do their part in feeding the starving millions.
llater,
llamas
I think it is quite incorrect to lump the twitish(Link) Bono and the far more insightful Geldoff together.
Thank you, Llamas.
We had this discussion around a year ago, and the concensus at that time – with some dissenting voices, needless to say – was that the solution for Africa to undergo colonisation-lite.
The points Euan made above are sound.
Africa is a magnificently endowed landmass and should be prospering. Euan’s point about their respect for a ‘strongman’ and their respect for the opinions of some pontificating old git were interesting and didn’t get mentioned last time.
It’s terrible that people are dying needlessly, but at the age of 50 plus, this childlike attitude of expectant dependence is beginning to wear on the nerves. We are not there to pick up their room for them.
I do think that somehow, we have to get food, medicine and education through to the children, but the current means of delivering these are too corrupt and ego-driven. The International Red Cross, for example, flies into a snit if any other organisation issues the now-traditional warning of “a humanitarian disaster”. That’s their line! Gerr-orff!
Perhaps they could have a go at privatisation and let a big (Western) corporation run them for five years or so and see what happens. I dunno.
Getting rid of the UN would be a start. It gives them a false sense of security and exaggerates their sense of self-importance.
It would be interesting if we could see a post on this thread written by an African.
Something like this happens in large parts of Nigeria. Big western corporations, in the absence of any meaningful government, pretty much run parts of the place, and I have to say it’s not really a pretty sight. Corporations in this position seem to be every bit as corrupt, interfering, intrusive, micro-managing and incompetent as states. This is one of the reasons I do not subscribe to the idea of anarcho-capitalism as a workable strategy – I’ve seen a close approximation to it in actual operation. At least with some form of representative government, you can get a say, however small, in how things are done. With the corporation, you don’t unless you buy your voice.
Like states, the corporations tend to make cosy little cartels and local monopolies, divvying things up amongst themselves for their own advantage. Many people here seem to think this wouldn’t happen in anarcho-capitalism, but sadly this is another case of wonderful theory not surviving contact with practical reality. To people who think this is the answer, I can only say – go live in Nigeria for a year using local services provided by the companies. If you survive, I’ll bet you’ll change your mind…
Well, yes, but…
Heartless as it may appear, I really do think the options are but two and stark – western control of their governments until they learn how to stand on their own feet (at least 2 generations, I suspect), or simply leave them to work it out for themselves. The former is politically unacceptable, the latter will result in many unnecessary deaths. But continuing to bail them out when things get really bad is only going to prolong the problems.
I agree, but I think the better solution is to replace it with some form of organisation open only to states meeting a certain minimum level of civilised values. The current ideas within the UN for radical reform (which will almost certainly not be implemented) are a step in the right direction but nowhere near far enough.
EG
If I recall, the corporations are licenced to act in certain areas and are not hired by the locals. This is not anarcho-capitalism as most of us would espouse or recognise it. It would be similar to the anarchists pointing out the rise of the National Socialists in Germany as an indictment of democracy.
– Josh
Actually, it is an indictment of democracy. The voters tried to get security at ANY price. The ended up with neither security or liberty.
Watch the US fedgov try to do the same. It looks like they are going for tyranny with out bothering to disarm the population. Times are getting interesting over here.
It doesn’t really make a lot of difference. The company is still there, doing the governing bit with a corporate structure. Without the companies, Nigeria would fall apart, so the licensing is a little academic – it comes down to little more than who pays the most for the territory.
Incidentally, if it was a ‘proper’ anarcho-capitalist system and the locals wanted to hire another company, but the company that was already there didn’t want this (i.e. loss of market and profit) to happen and was not averse to using heavy tactics to get its way, how exactly do you enforce the operation of a free market?
As indeed it is. If you have a democratic system, you admit the possibility of a fundamentally non-democratic organisation using the system to gain power and then preventing anyone else doing the same thing. It happened.
Equally, if you have a state, you admit the possibility of the state abusing its power through its monopoly of ultimate authority. And if you have corporations, you admit the possibility of the corporations abusing their power through bribery and intimidation, forming cartels and cosy arrangements, etc. In fact, where companies have no meaningful restriction on them, they do tend to behave exactly like this, just as where states have no meaningful checks they become tyrannies.
Nothing is perfect. You cannot have a perfect democracy without checks and restrictions. You can’t have a limited and responsible state without some non-state restriction (in practice, a degree of democracy generally works for this). And you can’t have an anarcho-capitalist paradise without some non-market mechanism to keep the free market working freely (in practice, regulation to some degree or other).
So the corporations make the money in the free market, which is kept free by the ultimate authority of the state. The state maintains order in the realm, and is in turn regulated by ultimate authority of the people in some form of democracy. The people in turn, and in return for the order and the ability to prosper themselves, accept a degree of regulation from both state and corporation. There are other links, in that the corporation needs the people to work for it, the state needs the people not to revolt and the state needs the company to prosper so there is money. The people alone cannot control the corporation, the corporation alone cannot control the state, the state alone cannot control the people.
Done correctly, each one supports and restricts the other three. I think it’s a tad more complex than the simplistic theories of both communism (people are perfectible) and anarcho-capitalism (people are rational) suppose, & would suggest it’s a three-way balance rather than a simple winner-takes-all tug of war in which the strongest (the corporation or the state) will inevitably pull down the weakest (the people). You need all three, it doesn’t work with just two.
Then again, I’m not a respected libertarian academic theorist, just someone who looks around at the way people really behave in real world in which I live and work, so what the f**k do I know?
EG
What you maybe actually mean is that David’s “compassion fatigue” maybe has a shorter tether than yours. I see nothing at all wrong with either his view or his opinion that we should now stop these horrific guilt trips of throwing good money notsomuch after bad, but into an abyss of charitable bureacracy – very little of which eventually materialises into tangible aid for those it was originally intended for.
Personally speaking I certainly object to the colossal amount of money that was spent upon this project which will be reclaimed as expenses prior to any disbursement of funds to Geldorf’s Band Aid Trust.
Here we go again. David’s “compassion fatigue” has worn thin. Why is the assumption that compassion for people who have demonstrated themselves incapable of running their own lives for 50 years is such a natural condition that when it is absent, it is soothingly referred to as “compassion fatigue”?
Frankly, some of us never felt particularly compassionate about Africa in the first place. David may or may not be one of these people, but I don’t think he should be automatically assumed to be “suffering” from a pc condition rather than making a simple judgement based on all the evidence.
Lining up alongside them are a rabble of pasty-faced no-talents, has-beens, wannabes and never-wases: a million mediocrity march…
Hmmm… that sort of reminds me of the Dem lineup for the nomination
Neglected to post a link to Kim du Toit’s insightful essay on Africa from the perspective of a true “African American”.
Forgive me if y’all have long since seen this stirring diatribe against the deliberate PC ignorance of the African ‘problem’ – the elephant in the living room, as it were.
The link doesn’t w-o-o-o-r-k!
“I will be keeping my loose change in my pocket where it belongs this festive season. I have not lost a single night of sleep over Africa and I never will.”
What an outright loathsome and despicable sentiment to express. My respect for you as an individual has just vanished into thin air; this isn’t the first time I’ve read posts by you that verged on the outright disgusting, but as far as I’m concerned, this is the final straw. No one is asking you to contribute to Band Aid or whatever voluntary fund-raising effort comes along (which makes it odd that you should take so much umbrage to it), but I’m doubtful that you’d have expressed the same contempt for the suffering of Poles, Russians and Czechs who also labored for decades under terrible governments.
“Frankly, some of us never felt particularly compassionate about Africa in the first place.”
There’s certainly no doubt about that in your case, “Verity”; you certainly aren’t one to pass by an opportunity to indulge your prejudices, are you?
“Neglected to post a link to Kim du Toit’s insightful essay on Africa from the perspective of a true “African American”.”
Yes, Kim du Toit’s position as a privileged Afrikaner during the days of apartheid makes him eminently qualified to pontificate on the problems of the entire continent … You’re full of sh*t.
It really is quite amusing to see all the bigots come out to frolick and display their ignorance of the “dark continent”; anyone who can say stupid nonsense like “Africans have never overthrown bad leaders” is too much of a fool to be worth taking seriously.
So when exactly was the last popular revolution in black Africa, then?
As I said when I made the comment, I’d be delighted to be proved incorrect. I’m waiting.
As for being a fool, maybe so but I have lived and worked there, and married an African woman. I do actually know what I’m talking about. You don’t need to be a African to figure out what’s wrong with Africa.
EG
But A.L., those eastern europeans, you speak of, got off their arses and did something about their plight instead of just whingeing. Several of those countries managed revolutions with little, if all, bloodshed. (So guns and other weapons are not necessarily necessary.)
And was the last time you saw a huge effort to raise money for a charity for Eastern Europeans? When was the last charity single/album for their plight?
Move along, folks, nothing more to see here.
Abiola Lapite has arrived, and summarily declared you all to be prejudiced, loathsome, despicable, ignorant, stupid, or full of s**t – take your pick. You are all officially disqualified from having any opinion whatever about what goes on in Africa.
I’m glad we got that settled. Now, at last, Africans, and those approved by Abiola Lapite, can get on with the simple tasks of eliminating racism, hunger, warfare, disease, corruption, slavery, torture and hangnails from the African continent. Shouldn’t take more than a few weeks, now that all of you prejudiced racists have been put in your places.
llater,
llamas
just wanted to say that:
1) the above “godless” isn’t me (diff email address)
2) the problem is that david carr is verbally expressing an expressed preference that people find distasteful.
Factually speaking, most people really *don’t* “lose sleep over the poor” in other countries. And most people, if given the chance to opt out w/o societal shaming or state enforcement, really *won’t* give $1000 to the cause of poverty in country X. They believe that money is better spent on themself or their kids.
Added on top of this is the pragmatic argument that no country ever got rich off foreign aid. That’s certainly not how Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea got off the mat.
Emotionally speaking, though, expressing the “I don’t care” sentiment explicitly makes you sound heartless and opens you up to demagoguery. “Don’t you care about the people”, they ask?
In other words, human nature demands hypocrisy and a minimum of lip service to humanitarianism, which is why an explicitly selfish libertarian ideology does not have a wide appeal.
‘I Don’t Give a Hoot About The Starving’
Sounds like an SOD song.
which is why an explicitly selfish libertarian ideology does not have a wide appeal.
Libertariansim has absolutely nothing to do with ‘selfishness’ explicity or otherwise.
This is a Randian confusion.
gc “In other words, human nature demands hypocrisy and a minimum of lip service to humanitarianism …”.
I believe that is a mildly dangerous thought, because it is the hypocrisy and lip service which have created the environment for all this charity blackmailing to flourish.
J: David, this post makes you sound like a complete arsehole. Why on earth did you write it?
Because he is a complete arsehole, perhaps.