Philosophy of the Far Right --------------------------- This document was written by Paul Edwards on 2001-01-16. Copyright 2001, all rights reserved. This document is designed to explain the obligations (if any) that the rich of the world have to support the poor of the world. This being the catchcry of the loony left. Let us start with the poorest people of the world, the Poor Starving Africans (PSA). Except for the PSAs themselves, we've all seen the ads on TV that try to shame us into giving a relatively small amount of money to help keep some PSAs alive. Why should we have our ghetto blasters and sports cars whilst others are starving to death? Is that fair or right? The question has been asked, so let us answer it. First of all, the simplest question first. Am I as a affluent first worlder (AFW) responsible for the plight of the PSAs? I mean, did I sire them? Did I both kill their parents and somehow steal the money from their parents life insurance? The answer is a very definite NO. So I have no direct responsibility to make amends. But do I have some moral obligation based on my conscience? Perhaps. If I see a wounded animal, I feel for it, and have a desire to shoot it so that it doesn't need to suffer anymore. If the PSAs were genuinely suffering, they would welcome being put out of their misery. As indeed AFWs also request (euthanasia). They could volunteer to be shot, have a lethal injection, or if the problem is big enough to warrant it, some more cost-effective method could be found, perhaps nuclear bomb or neutron bomb. If one of these charities on TV were proposing to do this to solve the problem, I would consider donating to that. I would want to know that the method of extermination being proposed was the most cost-effective though, before I parted with *MY* *HARD-EARNED* money. To date I have not seen any charities which do this yet, so I have not donated anything towards them. Of course there will be some people who do not think they are personally suffering sufficiently to warrant volunteering to be put out of their misery. But they genuinely think that this life they are living is pretty woeful, and don't think that anyone should have to live this life in the future. So they want a solution to the problem, that doesn't involve killing anyone. The most obvious solution to problem perpetuation is sterilization. This will ensure that no more children are born into subhuman conditions. Anyone who thinks that the conditions they are living in are subhuman, and should NOT be transferred to their children, should simply not have children. It's not like PSAs are an endangered species. Quite the reverse actually. Of course it is natural for people to have sex, so it is fairly pointless to ask them to abstain, that will never work. Sterilization though is a simple and effective procedure which will ensure that we don't need to rely on the PSAs themselves to behave responsibly in the heat of the moment. Once again, I know of no charity which is set up to do this. Indeed, even if there was, it would require the cooperation of the population as a whole too, because just sterilizing 10% of the population is not going to solve the problem. The other 90% will continue to breed exponentially. The country as a whole needs to agree that they want uniform sterilization to solve the problem for their entire population. No point in just the people who want the problem solved to die out leaving 100% perpetuators behind! In actual fact, the only charities that appear on TV all seem to be doing the same thing. Which is to keep the current PSAs alive. But if you keep 10 PSAs alive to breeding age without sterilization, it means in the next generation there will be 20 PSAs to take care of. That is to say the problem will get WORSE, not better! Not only that, but if you think that the AFWs have an obligation to PSAs, then you are creating a larger problem for the next generation of AFWs! That's your own kids! You are doing a great disservice to your own kids! So not only do I think that money given to any charity that is perpetuating the problem is a complete waste, I even consider it to be something immoral! But I realise that the AFWs are not doing it because they are immoral themselves, it's just that they haven't thought it through. In actual fact I feel sorry for the AFWs who are donating money. The charities are to blame, for ruthlessly playing on people's good nature. The charities are no different from people who pretend their car has broken down so that a Good Samaritan will stop to help, only to be mugged and robbed. Playing on AFW's good nature to take away the AFW's hard-earned money. Basically these charities are blood sucking leeches, a blemish on decent society. They are con men. Especially when you consider that the majority of the money is not spent on the people they purportedly help, it's spent on the clowns running the charity. I feel so sorry for people who spend their hard-earned money on perpetuators of misery. I would much rather see these people spending their hard-earned money on themselves. Someone told me that it cost less than their mobile phone to keep these people alive. I would suggest that they get a better mobile phone instead. It will benefit themselves, without harming their own future generations. (I'll expand on the remainder at a later date). Basically we have a similar situation in our own 1st-world countries. The real basic premise is that everyone should pay for what they use, that is truly fair. If we don't do that, then the least we can do is make everyone pay the same AMOUNT of tax. No-one owes anyone else a brass razoo. If we can't manage the above, for reasons of people not earning enough, then we should have a sliding tax system, where you pay 50c in the dollar for the first dollar you earn, and it goes down, until you've paid your debt to society. If we don't even do this, then the ABSOLUTE minimum we should consider is a flat tax. Instead, we bizarrely have tax rates that RISE as income goes up. And the dole bludgers et al have the audacity to whinge about "high income earners"?! Sterilization is the order of the day here.