Remix clone Hacker News

This may be a good point to recap. It is not my intent to misstate your rationales here, so please tell me if I have mischaracterized your viewpoint. Nuance is tragically difficult to convey on HN.

Your initial argument, which I believe we're still discussing, was "Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption." The implicit assertion here is that USAID was rightfully defunded and that that was correct given the way it has conducted itself since 1961. You have submitted evidence regarding its creation and the underlying intent therein as well as documented instances of poor, ineffective behavior.

My argument is that the manner in which USAID was defunded is indefensible because it was done without consideration of existing obligations, thereby creating a vacuum of support.

To this point, I haven't seen any argument to my issue with the method of USAID's dismantling. We're talking about real harm to real people's lives and livelihoods and you've ignored that aspect entirely and countered with more information about the organization.

Let me say it plainly: I do not care about USAID the agency and its history. I care about the careless way in which its contracts and programs were ended. Saying and proving that USAID was bad doesn't justify canceling the good works for which it was responsible.

A second point of discussion was on the nature of effective charity. This is an altogether deeper topic, so bear with me on this:

You are advocating that charitable organizations should be working to solve root problems and not just providing material assistance. Additionally, you have stated that charitable contributions are not a sustainable means of helping people in the longer term.

My argument is that that you always need both.

As I've done more and more volunteer work and gotten out of my comfort zone of affluence, I've become much more dismissive of any proposed "perfect" or "optimal" solutions. There is a tendency, especially in America, to reject any solution that doesn't completely solve a problem. The alternative to the rejected solution typically being to continue doing whatever is currently being done.

Can you see how this appears to be what you're engaging in? Giving food to poor people is not an optimal solution. I agree that it would be better if the poor people got their own food, but that's not happening right now. Stopping the conversation at what "should" be happening might make us feel better about ourselves, but it does nothing to combat human misery.

This point is also a distraction from my fundamental question: Should USAID have been dismantled without a transition plan? I don't mind that we've veered off into the nature of effective charity since that is a topic in which I have an interest, but I believe that we're here because of a rationalization on your part to downplay the impact of USAID's work.

Since we're talkin about people and their actual lives, we have to be aware of outcomes. There is no shortage of talk about "how" to help people and a dearth of people actually doing something about it. USAID, in a very real way, was involved in doing some positive things both domestically and abroad. That is gone now and your argument seems to be that the outcomes could have been better if something that never happened was done instead.

Following that, there is a side discussion relating to what I'll refer to as "bothsidesism":

Your original assertion is that defunding USAID is not as severe as it may seem now because the other party will come back and rebuild that organization when they're back in power. You expand the argument to say both sides operate in largely the same manner.

My response, minus substantial snark, is that the is that there are exceedingly clear differences in conduct between the two political parties, particularly as it relates to abuse of power and procedural rules.

Thanks so much for reminding me about indefinite detention. I hope Dianne Feinstein rots for eternity for shoehorning that clause into a budget bill. It was disgusting then and they tried to backpedal into limiting it and just making it worse. I don't see how legally drafting, passing, and signing a terrible provision on a bill is on par with the abuses of procedure that I mentioned.

You are correct, though: this part of the discussion will not be particularly fruitful. I would ask that you reflect on the horror show that has been the last 2 months and ask yourself what the news would look like if Joe Biden did any of the same things.

Finally, jlcases reminds us that serious discussion on the internet is even more difficult in the age of AI. Thanks, jlcases!

▲

somenameforme 12 days ago | parent [-]

My view with cancelling USAID is that the world is a better place because of such. Could it have been made even better if somehow we were able to selectively pick and choose 'worthy' programs and work to transition them out? Maybe, but perfect is not the enemy of good. And the reason I say maybe is because I have high doubts such a transitioning could have been done effectively in anything like a remotely viable timeframe. What genuine impact is felt with USAID's demise will be able to filled by the countless other aid organizations working in places like Africa.

And while perfect is not the enemy of good, bad certainly is. And altruism without consideration of the consequences can easily become harmful. A recurring example is with food. A country will suffer some force majeure and be flooded with ongoing international donations of food. This sends the price of most basic foodstuffs plummeting, local farmers lose their livelihood, and suddenly the country becomes completely dependent upon foreign powers for food. This also happens when countries are encouraged by global organizations to lower food tariffs. This is one of the many ways that altruism can be weaponized - intentionally hurting by "helping."

As for the politics stuff, I do not agree that refusing to advance a Supreme Court Candidate is worse than enabling legal indefinite detention of citizens without trial or representation. And, with all due respect, I'm fairly certain you don't think so either. I can't comment on the past two months because I'm generally quite supportive of it, though I did not vote for Trump either time.

In general though I think the notion of an 'advanced economy' is farcical: You take all of the most critical parts of your economy, ship them off elsewhere, and largely replace them with superflous luxury goods and services. I see this as both exploitative and unsustainable, and it creates behemoth multinational corporations that, in many ways, end up having even more power than governments. I'd like to imagine we learned a lesson or two from the East India Company. But perhaps it's like 1984, we did learn lessons - just the wrong ones.

▲

Smeevy 11 days ago | parent [-]

We are unfortunately destined to disagree on these points and definitely some others. You do write very well and I believe you have some reasons for your positions, but they don't appear logically consistent to me.

Just to descend into pedantry: "Perfect is the enemy of the good." That's the aphorism. The misapplication undercuts the argument you're making from a composition standpoint. It's like you're saying "the sword is mightier than the pen."

Your position on ending USAID is impractical on a moral basis. If the solution you're comfortable with is to risk people dying when the alternative was to take a period of time to responsibly transition obligations, then I conclude that the immediate welfare of those people is less important to you than the shuttering of USAID. Was the situation so dire that we couldn't even ship food and medicine for which we had already paid? This is the equivalent of addressing the trolley problem by arresting the bystander and turning your back on the whole troublesome thing.

This fragment is also disappointing for me: "[...] if somehow we were able to selectively pick and choose 'worthy' programs [...]". Somehow? All of USAID's programs were actively reporting status and commitments and that information was not utilized. I understand that you support one of the outcomes, ending USAID, but the collateral damage was entirely avoidable. You're creating a false urgency here and I can't quite determine if it is a blind spot in your reasoning or a rhetorical trick.

You also counter with:

1) a "slippery slope" argument that leads to the expedient conclusion that we should leave everything to someone else because we wouldn't want to harm someone by helping too much and then having something go wrong thereby leaving them in a worse position than they would be otherwise. That's very convenient.

2) an implicit accusation that all USAID programs existed without consideration of consequences. I say "all" because the existence of any USAID programs that were thoughtfully implemented with sustainability in mind are prevented from sliding down your slippery slope because anyone else would have to do as good as or better than USAID in order for it to make any difference in the outcome.

Can you see how fallacy-ridden your reasoning is here? You should reconcile these beliefs against an ethical framework. Just pick one or two and think about it.

	▲	somenameforme 11 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This turned out surprisingly lengthy. I want to support my claims with examples to make it clear that this isn't just hand-waving or off the cuff claims, so such as it is! I am not opposed to shipping aid that was already paid for if it would go to waste otherwise, but when we speak of transitioning programs in general, that would require an audit of each and every program - which is likely impossible. The reason is that when USAID does things it is done indirectly, by relying on contractors, subcontractors and other entities. Let's consider the rebuilding of Haiti. They were involved in that operation, spearheaded by the Red Cross, which ended up spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build exactly 6 permanent housing units, and exactly 0 people were held accountable. How could this happen? If you look at their disbursements they're always going to go to plausible sounding entities, for plausible sounding amounts of funding, that plausibly contribute to a goal in a logical way. So to actually audit this you need to get down on the ground level, worldwide, and start auditing those contractors. But each of them will also be doing the exact same thing on down a chain with ever less reliable accounting and other variability. Even if you can finally get to a 'leaf node' they may have plausible shells entities setup, may have 'gone out of business', or maybe they never even existed and it actually turns out the leaf-1 node sent you on a wild goose chase. It's just not really practical. This is why I think auditing each program is simply not viable. --- My fundamental argument is that USAID is an agency that uses aid as a weapon, which misaligns their efforts. This was the point of their founding and has been clearly demonstrated by contemporary actions as well, let alone the classified programs they were involved in. Because of this, I think their dismantling is making the world a better place. Could it have been done even better? Maybe, but then we're back to the above. You can also see this weaponization in Haiti. After the earthquake USAID decided to spend some of their funding [1] getting people to vote for this [2] fine fellow and against this [3] lady, a constitutional law professor and widow of a former president. "Her platform for the presidency included a focus on education of the youth of Haiti, and lifting the long-standing and restrictive constitutional conditions on dual nationality. She specifically promoted opening government positions for members of the Haitian diaspora. Manigat also aimed for a more independent Haitian state, one less reliant upon and subject to foreign governments and NGOs." Instead USAID encouraged people to vote for a musician with no political experience who was "notorious for his cursing on stage, cross-dressing as well as using homophobic slurs." He'd eventually end up being sanctioned by the US and Canada for being involved in drug trafficking to the US, human rights violations, and overtly backing armed Haitian criminal gangs. His reign also unsurprisingly featured excessive corruption, him taking millions in bribes (in a country with a GDP/capita of less than $4k), and more. It's likely that the main reason USAID was backing him is because his opponent was in favor of a more independent Haiti. Who would have been better for Haitians? But who would be better for the US? Hahaha, I'll grant the drug trafficking kind of makes that a harder question than it should be, but obviously I mean in more of a geopolitical Haiti-US sense than a personal one. Haiti remains in a completely horrific state, and I don't think "aid" that comes with these sort of strings attached is helping anybody, and is certainly causing substantial suffering. And this is a fairly softball example of weaponized aid! --- [1] - https://cepr.net/publications/revealed-usaid-funded-group-su... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Martelly [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirlande_Manigat
	▲	11 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]