Ordo amoris, as explained by Vance, is a concept that you prioritize the needs of people closest to you (immediate family), then the next closest, etc. Obviously this is common sense and generally describes how reasonable people live their lives, so it is completely wrong for Trump to govern the country in the same way according to libs.
A lot of the discussion has centered around a foreign aid program called PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) started by Bush in 2003, also referred to as PREP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis). Basically the program distributes HIV/AIDS meds to 20M+ people for about $6.5 billion and has been estimated to save 26M lives since its inception. This program is now cut off, probably permanently, since it was administered by USAID and that agency has been deleted by DOGE.
It's a pretty interesting issue, especially regarding Christian ethics, since it's a proxy for the entire African charity movement, but I think the answer is clear.
-
Ordo amoris: we don't adequately take care of the poor and needy in our own country, so we can't justify spending money on other countries.
-
USAID is a supervillainous agency that uses aid to force countries into globohomo and who knows what other purposes. USAID is made to hurt people, not help them. We need to wipe the slate clean.
-
Any soft power we get from PEPFAR seems nonexistent given China's Belt and Road incursion into Africa, among other things.
-
Love in the Bible is a concept that encompasses just leadership as well as kindness and help. This is why the Bible firmly defines "God is love" even though He visited all kinds of disasters on the Israelites and other nations. Allowing the consequences of their wrongdoing to fall on their heads, instead of aiding and abetting it, was an act of love. In the end it was better for them.
Would it be better for Africa to distribute free anti-STD drugs in the long run? The continent's population is skyrocketing at an unbelievable rate thanks to Western intervention, and they still can't take care of themselves. Is it better for Africa to host an exponentially growing population that will be unable to obtain food by themselves, let alone anything more meaningful?
Are Africans advancing when anti-STD drugs insulate them from practices like pouring sand in vaginas before sex and raping virgins to cure AIDS?
- one of the crucial tests of love in the Bible is the Golden Rule: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12
So if I was African and I had foresight of what was going to happen to Africa when the continent spikes into the multiple billions of people, would I want that to be done to my people? Probably not.
- also, as some people have noted, the previous verses illustrate God's love as such: "Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" - Matthew 9:12
One might ask, "what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will tell him he already gave the bread to the Africans?"
Sowells iron law of the train disagrees with you. A countries ability to excel is not based on what incentives it’s given by other countries, but instead by what its country is able to produce from those incentives. When Britain began exporting the rail system most countries hired and kept British engineers and paid Britain for the maintenance and repair of the trains and rails. However some countries, notably Japan, Germany, and the US, learned how to run the trains without British engineers and then improved upon their structure using their own engineers and maintenance.
Africa is so far down the hole that economic philosophy isn't nearly as ironclad because they are skirting the line on survival and basic needs in setting up their economy.
Their economy might fall to complete shit on a global relative scale, but it'll stabilize on things they need to survive and provide. It'll end up a century behind technologically, but that's not our concern if that's what they are capable of maintaining for themselves.
Doubtful, Africa has been propped up by foreign countries for so long the only realistic outcome of all aid leaving is mass death with many pockets of Africa going extinct.
Its been propped up for a fraction of its existence. It was clearly able to live once on its own, even if it was never innovating.
Most of them will probably die, that's because their population was artificially grown beyond what they could manage. That's part of the stabilization process, finding the balance where they can feed and support themselves numerically.
That I can agree with
There's a difference between successful and survivable. Africa has never been successful minus ine or two blips. But they were certainly able to survive and sustain themselves pre western coddling
And if that aid left the population would likely become less than 1/3 of its current state IF it manages to stabilize and isn’t immediately colonized by China. They do not have the money or infrastructure to maintain 1.5 billion people.
Pretty much anything south of the sahara is a retarded shithole. Apparently jungles have low iq people. It only gets slightly better in south africa.. slightly.
Their IQ is low for civilized society, but its not so low that they are physically incapable of caring for themselves on a basic level. Most of that can be run off pure instinct, so they just need to not be so retarded it interferes with those functions which their average 60-70 IQs wouldn't.
Africans are more than capable of living a stable, mudhut level existence if allowed to and thrive decently relative to that technological level. It was our interference that tried to uplift them beyond that, leading to unsustainable population levels and trying to operate things beyond their normal capabilities.
I don't see how that counters my point.
We aren't sending trains or experts when sending foreign aid. We're just sending raw cash, for no significant benefit, and then disrupting the economy by promoting mal-investment among the locals. It was Sowel's classic argument that pointed out that Doctors were choosing to be taxi drivers when foreigners showed up with foreign aid because it paid so much better.
Again, why did it pay so much better? What happened to the money? This is why the train law applies. Those doctors weren’t creating or innovating medicine, they used foreign textbooks with foreign medical gear and foreign medications. Those doctors became taxi drivers because it was more relevant to their actual skill set, which was the ability to speak a foreign language. The fact is the overwhelming majority of the world does not have the intellectual capacity to innovate and compete, many don’t even have the ability to replicate or be self sustaining.
Your assumption is that stopping Foreign Aid is the same as cutting off all contact with Africa. I'm not saying they aren't allowed to buy American books, or pay for British engineers.
No, those doctors became taxi drivers because being a taxi driver gave them an income that was 3 times their yearly wage as a doctor.
Ridiculously wrong. Every population in recorded history has the ability to innovate and be competitive. The question is how productive will one innovation be over another.
That's so ridiculously hyperbolic it can't be taken seriously. Turtles can replicate and be self-sustaining.
You noted that our example African was capable of learning two languages. Yes, by definition, he can feed himself. Jesus.
How are you so blatantly stupid that you got that from what I said. The entire medical system in Africa IS ENTIRELY RELIANT ON FOREIGN INNOVATION AND FOREIGN WORKERS PRODUCTION.
AGAIN, WHY?! Why are they so poor as doctors? Is it because they have absolutely nothing to offer but someone else’s product?
Complete lie, there are numerous societies today that would completely collapse without foreign intervention just as an uncountable amount have collapsed before now.
The majority of Africa would starve and collapse within a decade exactly because they can’t feed themselves or be self sustainable. Animals go extinct without intervention all the time, including multiple species of turtles! Being able to speak a second language is not an indicator of self reliance.