Darfur Rebels Kill 10 in Peace Force

[Chaossaber314]

While we don't have a legal obligation to help I agree with the earlier sentiment that we certainly have a moral one. If you see a wrong and are able to do something about it, you should. That's one of my fundamental beliefs/opinions.

To me it's the equivalent of watching a woman get her purse snatched and doing nothing. Sure, you're not legally obligated to help her and yes, we do have police whose job it is to catch this individual, but right now in that moment you have the ability to act to prevent him from getting away and worsening the situation. While not everyone would or should act, for that matter, if I have the ability to do so, I will. This is a values issue.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: While we don't have a legal obligation to help I agree with the earlier sentiment that we certainly have a moral one. If you see a wrong and are able to do something about it, you should.

Thats a great outlook to have, albeit it is a personal one. I can respect that opinion, but not when that "care" eminated from a government source, regardless of how large the majority who supports it.

Chaos said: That's one of my fundamental beliefs/opinions.

Same here, but, it is a personal view.

Chaos said: To me it's the equivalent of watching a woman get her purse snatched and doing nothing. Sure, you're not legally obligated to help her and yes, we do have police whose job it is to catch this individual, but right now in that moment you have the ability to act to prevent him from getting away and worsening the situation. While not everyone would or should act, for that matter, if I have the ability to do so, I will. This is a values issue.

I agree.

I would also say if people are truly disturbed about Darfur, they should take personal action to help through charities, or personal action at their own cost.

As long as it isn't layed out as a "government responsibility" I will be just fine.

My government has the sworn obligation to help the woman who had her purse snatched, but not the non-citizens in Darfur.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn Thats a great outlook to have, albeit it is a personal one. I can respect that opinion, but not when that "care" eminated from a government source, regardless of how large the majority who supports it.

But isn't that the very foundation of democratic theory? We elect representatives for our values who are expected to act according to them. If the electorate would rather funnel money from say... public schools or the parks service... or any number of governmentally owned and operated organizations, is it not their right?

I know we differ greatly in our beliefs on the role of government, but aside from living in a fascist state, isn't the foundation of a democratically based society to be to engage in actions desired by the people who elected them? Not necessarily following their every whims but the generally important things like "stopping genocide"?

I think the role of government isn't something we can really debate, but whatever the people electing that government decide it is.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: But isn't that the very foundation of democratic theory?

Possibly, but we aren't, nor were intended to be a pure democracy, and that part of the theory doesn't make it past the individual rights of people and the illegality of that use of taxation.

Chaos said: We elect representatives for our values who are expected to act according to them. If the electorate would rather funnel money from say... public schools or the parks service... or any number of governmentally owned and operated organizations, is it not their right?

In honesty, it isn't their right to tax for that BS in the first place, so, NO!

Chaos said: I know we differ greatly in our beliefs on the role of government, but aside from living in a fascist state, isn't the foundation of a democratically based society to be to engage in actions desired by the people who elected them?

Yes, but, in our nation, they are FORBIDDEN to infringe upon, or abridge the rights of the people in law, and that is what this type of law would do.

Chaos said: Not necessarily following their every whims but the generally important things like "stopping genocide"?

Its not in the authority vested in the Constitution, for government to use taxpayers money to affect foreign governments. We aren't even supposed to have the bulk of what we have today, regarding entangling alliances with other nations, so no.

Chaos said: I think the role of government isn't something we can really debate, but whatever the people electing that government decide it is.

In a pure democracy, that would be the case. Not in the United States, where people refuse to surrender their rights to government authority without bloodshed.(yes, a large percentage)