Darfur: Why I Dont Give a Damn
Ryan | 31 05 2007There are so many reasons I could care less about Darfur and there are so many problems with the logic of the “save Darfur crowd” that it’s hard for me to find a place to begin. But let me essentially say that I don’t care because the crisis neither involves nor affects me. I feel no connection to the people who live there—they are not my “brothers and sisters,” their fate has nothing to do with me; don’t pretend they have anything to do with you. I don’t care if a bunch of Arabs want to kill a bunch of indiginates, it happens all the time, and it happens because their society is primitive and uncivilized.
Do I like the fact that 400,000 people have been killed there? No. Do I wish that Africa as well as the whole world would live in freedom and (thus) prosperity? Yes. But wishing it true won’t change its reality. And to fix Darfur will change a real and concentrated effort. And that effort will cost a price. The question that remains is, why should we engage in this effort?
The efforts that exist as is—the initiatives of the bleeding hearts and Darfur-is-the-in-thing-to-
But for intervention to occur at least one nation must take responsibility. But whom? Is there any nation, any person who is obligated to help? No, of course not. Not the US, not any nation—save the Sudan itself—is guilty of the crimes committed there, so they have not responsibility to invest themselves to alter the course. Nor do these nations have a responsibility to themselves to intervene in Darfur because the Sudan is not by any stretch of the imagination a threat to the security of their country.
Of course this does not say that anyone is not morally justified in attempting to fight—Sudan is a murderous regime that perpetually violates the rights of their citizens and systematically operates on a premise larger than death. But if you do chose to fight for Darfur then you must fight yourself. You cannot and may not drag anyone else into this fight. What do I mean by this? I mean that you can donate as much money as you want but you cannot take my money and donate it (i.e. international aid via taxes…duh). I mean that you can go fight in Darfur as part of an ad hoc vigilante militia but you cannot deploy US military—who I pay and whose job is to protect me—and waste their efforts and their lives on a problem irrelevant to American security.
As far as I’m concerned my government exists to protect my rights—just as other governments exist to protect their citizens. So the only time my government should wield its foreign policy is when my rights are threatened by foreign belligerents. Anything more is a waste of my money, which the government confiscated from me, and thus tramples on my rights. So if the United States government endeavors to fix the shit pie that is the Sudan—a nation whose government in zero ways threatens American freedom—it does so at my expense. And quite frankly we have enough people in the world trying to kill us already to begin worrying about people who aren’t.
I think the most childish thing about the save Darfur crowd is that for all their labors they have never actually enumerated a plan or even a general strategy for solving it. Most of the efforts have concentrated around “awareness”—we hear that word a lot with them—well guess what? We’re aware; surely, all of our policy makers know about it; so is the UN. But awareness does not come close to solving the problem. As I said, someone’s gonna have to wage war. But the problem is that the save Darfur crowd is the type of crowd hardly willing to fight a war and face up to the harsh realities of it. They are the type who thinks that they can live outside of reality, where you can stop a bomb by holding hands, contradicting values can live in harmony, and there is no objective concept of evil.
The only proper roll of a foreign policy is self-defense—in the same way that government is created for the purpose of defending the individual rights of its citizens. Privately donating and striving for Darfurians is wonderful, but no one has an obligation to Darfur which is why employing our government—using the tax money and lives of Americans—to fix the problem is an unjust option. Simply it seams like the bleeding hearts of the world have been following each other without ever looking where they are heading. They don’t seem to be willing to defend our country from a belligerent like Iran, but when the fate of the primitive and irrelevant are brought to the table everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off. It’s about time we got a hold of ourselves and allow rationality to enter the debate. Someone has got to have the balls to say it: Darfur just doesn’t matter.
Last 5 posts by Ryan
- For Republicans, a rock star is born - September 5th, 2008
- Campaign '08: Knocked Up - September 1st, 2008
- BREAKING: it's...it's...Palin?! - August 29th, 2008
- Scarcity, Shmarcity - June 26th, 2008
- The Greatness of Southpaws - June 26th, 2008
Popularity: 31% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
The Darfur: Why I Dont Give a Damn by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Maybe you should give a damn because they are people.
Arthus Erea | 31 05 2007Maybe you should give a damn because they are people. If people we killing people in your town, would you want others to care? Or, would you want them to stand neutral simply because it does not pose a threat to them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those hand holding hippies… I do not believe it is the role of our government to intervene in other countries. It should be a choice that every American can make for themselves - whether that means through private groups or lobbying of Congress…
Actually, I believe the entire political system around the world is outdated and inept. For one thing, we should dissolve country boundaries. Instead, we should be creating a world state that has the same laws and protections regardless of where you live. Of course, localization would be built into this system. However, it would still be illegal to kill someone - no matter where you live in the world. When creating a world state, it should not be thrust upon people. On a country by country basis, existing governments could invite the world state to expand over their country. However, a vote of every citizen would be required before this happens. (Majority rules) Once enough countries join the nation, then overthrow of totalitarian dictatorships could be accomplished. However, this would have to happen from the inside. The world state could provide arms, but the overthrown must be a revolution - not an invasion.
In this world state, the entire representative democracy system would be destroyed in favor of a pure democracy. Every citizen would be provided with a laptop. Therefore, every citizen could vote upon bills which come up. Bills would be suggested through a petition process.
Back to Darfur, I believe that everyone deserves a right to life - but, I don’t presume I or the government should have the authority to thrust that belief upon others. Intervention in foreign nations through taxpayer dollars should be decided by a majority, purely democratic vote.
Fantastic Article, I'm glad someone finally said it. I cannot
Eftychis | 31 05 2007Fantastic Article, I’m glad someone finally said it.
I cannot agree more, Europe made the mess in Africa, it should be up to the EU to fix it. And by God, we must not and should not spend American treasure (in blood and money) to save people who have no effect on us.
There are things we can do like ensuring US companies are not selling weapons to the Sudanese government, but if these people want to save Darfur so badly, then they should get on a plane, grab and AK-47, and do it.
I like how all these people are screaming about Darfur
Chou | 31 05 2007I like how all these people are screaming about Darfur and the atrocities there while completely ignoring other things… it’s probably another diversion for the media. I still advocate a constitutional monarchical libertarian world government, and I feel that the necessary intervention cannot be financial aid-Darfur is an insatiable money pit, like government. However, I bet that if the United States launched a few more cruise missiles, a lot more people would be quiet. Look at Taiwan. They haven’t revolted because China has 500 cruise missiles pointed at them. Why can’t we do the same? As they say, an ounce of prevention…
"If people we killing people in your town, would you
Ryan | 1 06 2007“If people we killing people in your town, would you want others to care?”
if people in my town were being killed, i would care and i would see it fit to fight for my freedom by any means. and i would urge MY government to employ military force to fight. but see, the point is that, that is the point of my government. to defend its people when they are being attacked. and if it is the government itself that is being attacked then the people, if they value their freedom, must do their best to achieve it. And they could want others to care all they want, but it is not moral of them to FORCE others to care. Other people have no obligation to fix the situation because they are guilty of nothing nor have an obligation to anybody, and it is that fact which i am trying to establish.
“It should be a choice that every American can make for themselves - whether that means through private groups or lobbying of Congress…”
you contradicted yourself. if it is the choice of every individual American whether to help or not, then lobbying congress is not an option, because congress is the government and would be acting using the general public’s resources whether or not their are people who do not desire their tax money to be used on darfur. this is why i say the government of America must not apply itself, because in doing so it will be taking the money of Americans for darfur–which has nothing to do with them or their freedom–even if those people do not want their money to go to darfur.
“we should be creating a world state that has the same laws and protections regardless of where you live…(Majority rules) Once enough countries join the nation, then overthrow of totalitarian dictatorships could be accomplished…In this world state, the entire representative democracy system would be destroyed in favor of a pure democracy.”
unless you are a total authoritarian, this would be a complete disaster. i can hardly put into words, let alone make brief how bad an idea this would be. first of all a pure democracy wholly subjects the freedom of the individual to the majority. meaning, that minority rights–especially the rights of the individual, the smallest minority of all–could be violated by a simple majority vote. and moreover it would be even more dangerous our rights here in American if we were to be sucked in by this amorphous political blob. putting American liberty up for vote in the international realm is an awful, awful idea that will inevitably result in a more authoritarian government for Americans. it would be an act of self sacrifice never seen before in American history, and it would be the downfall the the shining city on a hill.
“Back to Darfur, I believe that everyone deserves a right to life - but, I don’t presume I or the government should have the authority to thrust that belief upon others. Intervention in foreign nations through taxpayer dollars should be decided by a majority, purely democratic vote.”
again, you have contradicted yourself something fierce. you essentially say that government should not thrust certain beliefs upon others, but then say if a majority does its ok. so? which one is it. do people have the right to do as they wish or can mobs force other people to do as they see fit. the concept of individual rights is absolute and that means that they still have moral legitimacy when a majority doesnt believe so. Truth precedes perception–freedom precedes democracy.
As usual Ryan, you did a fantastic job of defending
Eftychis | 1 06 2007As usual Ryan, you did a fantastic job of defending your opinion!
You make some good points, such as the pointlessness of
Simmons | 3 06 2007You make some good points, such as the pointlessness of some human rights groups activities. Respectfully, besides that, you’re wrong. You can’t just give up on your fellow humans like that. The point of living is to make your species stronger; you can’t do that if you only care about yourself. As Mr. Erea said, would you want others to care and to do something if this was happening in Greenwich?
Another example:
If the Holocaust was going on now, would you allow the mass-killing to happen?
The point of living, is, indeed, to make your species
Chou | 3 06 2007The point of living, is, indeed, to make your species stronger. So if you have a limited amount of resources, would you put it into something that will give back, or something that won’t give back? Precisely, you would put it into furthering the economy over aid money that probably won’t be repaid. Who earns each dollar? The worker, or a citizen of Darfur? The worker, of course. Why should the worker be forced to give his money to somebody who didn’t earn it? If he or she wants, they should be perfectly able to do so. But they shouldn’t be forced into it. What if that person needs that dollar to avoid foreclosure? As the Chinese say, why help someone if you’ll drown in the process?
And bringing the Holocaust into this is completely unnecessary, i.e. Godwin’s law. To respond, though, I would have done something about it, but as Objectivist interpretations go, it is because Germany was a threat to me. They wanted to specifically exterminate all non-Aryans, and that threatens me. Thus, I would do something about it. Plus, they were on their way to nuclear weaponry. Still, keep in mind that we didn’t truly know of the Holocaust until later in the war.
If this had happened in Greenwich, unless I specifically cared about that person, I wouldn’t have gotten involved. I can either waste my money to feed the beaucracy, intervene and either get shot/brought up as a criminal. I have everything to lose and pretty much nothing to gain from a purely non-emotional standpoint.
In retrospect, this is very Social Darwinistic.
I concur with Chou's interpretations of the Social Darwinism present
zach | 3 06 2007I concur with Chou’s interpretations of the Social Darwinism present in this circumstance. However, as some other commenters have discussed, it’s human lives we’re talking about. The goal of society may be to further your situation, but it’s important to realize that other humans face dangers they cannot control. Imagine if you were forced from your home by rebel soldiers. Would you give up hope? Somewhere inside of everyone, there exists an ability to sympathize with fellow members of the human race. These situations rely on that part of you and those facing death in Darfur hope that you will realize that they are people to, people worthy of a chance, people worthy of rescue.
In response to what Zach said, “rebel soldiers” they are
Eftychis | 3 06 2007In response to what Zach said, “rebel soldiers” they are being exiled by death squads of the Sudanese government are not forcing people from their homes. A recent article in the Financial Times reported that the Sudanese government was disgusting bombers as UN relief planes so that they would not be recognized by international rights organizations.
As I watch the Democrat debates tonight on CNN, the presidential candidates have called for the use of “diplomacy” to solve the problem in Darfur. It will not work. If you want to save the people in Darfur, organize a fundraiser to hire one of the many South African militias to target and systematically eliminate the Sudanese death squads and cripple their military and political infrastructure.
@Ryan: Throughout your writing, you hold true to the misfounded
Arthus Erea | 3 06 2007@Ryan: Throughout your writing, you hold true to the misfounded belief that Americans are better than others and that no one has any obligation to humanity. What of all the people who came before you to create this modern age? Since you can’t repay your debt to them individually, you should be paying it to humanity in general. If you place no value upon human life, then any work in Darfur is a waste - guarunteed you will see a greater increase in the international economy by investing it. However, I believe human life of any type is priceless and should come before money.
Yes, that was a stupid thing to say. I do not agree with that stament at all and should have reviewed my comment before posting it. I have to agree that our government should not be doing anything in Darfur… governments are created solely for the use of their citizens. It is the decision of every individual of whether they care about human life and are willing to back it up with resources.
I would rather have my freedom subject to the majority than having my freedom subjected to the will of a handful of individuals, as it is in our present representative democracy. If the majority feels I should not have a right, then I should seriously be considering whether I deserve that right.
Aren't objectivists flexible? You have to care for others; it's
Simmons | 4 06 2007Aren’t objectivists flexible? You have to care for others; it’s basic human rights. We’re talking about mass-murder here. Isn’t that a little different?
Of course, it’s all about the ratio cost&effort:result. We agree on that point.
America was founded on American Republicanism (not to be confused with Republican as in conservative). “It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters”.
You can’t just let them die.
Politics and morals, are, unfortunately, two different things. 1:4
Chou | 4 06 2007Politics and morals, are, unfortunately, two different things. 1:4 people support helping the people in Darfur. Conversely, that means that 3:4 people don’t. Why should the 1:4 people make the other 3:4 people pay for a cause that they want? They shouldn’t. Precisely. Now, I would advocate simply conquering the damn country, as an imperial constitutional monarchical-libertarian->leading to socialism, because they don’t know how to run their country without killing each other off. That will end the genocide and allow the refugees to get some time to help defend themselves.
It doesn't matter what the 3 people think. If 75%
Simmons | 5 06 2007It doesn’t matter what the 3 people think. If 75% of people disagreed with the law, too bad for them.
Are you implying that a majority of people can have
Chou | 5 06 2007Are you implying that a majority of people can have their rights taken away by a minority? This sounds like facism and totalitarianism. If 75% of people aren’t allowed to protest something, by all means they should, as John Locke would advocate, overthrow their government.
My comment was completely clear. I meant if 75% of
Simons | 5 06 2007My comment was completely clear. I meant if 75% of people disagreed with supporting others rights.
No, John Locke wouldn’t advocate that. He strongly believed all humans have basic rights. He would support trying to save those in Darfur.
You have 3 slices of cake and 4 people. 3
Arthus Erea | 5 06 2007You have 3 slices of cake and 4 people. 3 of them helped make the cake. However, the fourth refused to help. The 3 people (the majority) believe they should divide the slices equally amongs the 3 makers. However, the fourth protests this is “taking away his rights.” If the majority feels something and it follows basic principles of fairness, why should the minority have a right?
Here's the thing though: the 25% is not being affected
Chou | 5 06 2007Here’s the thing though: the 25% is not being affected by this at all. Either way, they will send money to help. 75% of the people, however, don’t want to help out for various reasons. Why should they be forced to help if they don’t want to? This could apply vice-versa to minorities, I suppose. People should be able to control their own lives.
Besides, in this case, it is the majority that is losing their rights.
"My comment was completely clear" It should have said, "My comment
Simmons | 11 06 2007“My comment was completely clear”
It should have said, “My comment was completely UNclear”. Sorry; that was unclear
If there was really a genocide in the Sudan, wouldn't
LiberalDemocrat | 24 06 2007If there was really a genocide in the Sudan, wouldn’t they all be dead by now? This thing has been going on for a long time, and personally, i’m sick of hearing about it. I don’t care about Darfur. I kind of wish the Janjaweed would hurry up with it, because if there are no Darfurians left, the media can’t whine about it.
I can not even begin to say how self centered
Arthus Erea | 25 06 2007I can not even begin to say how self centered and completely heartless that is… Wanting people to be dead just so you don’t have to hear about them.
For one thing, nobody makes you read about Darfur… plenty of people don’t. By that same idea, maybe we should just kill all poor people in America so we don’t have to hear about economic integration… Oh, and let’s kill all the celebrities so we don’t have to hear about them… In fact, let’s just kill everyone so we don’t have to hear about them.
Genocide does not require that everyone is already dead: it just means a group is trying to kill everyone from another group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
There are still Jews alive, yet you can’t deny the holocaust was a genocide.
The Janjaweed are my heroes :).
LIberalDemocrat | 29 07 2007The Janjaweed are my heroes :).
[...] in Darfur. While those without much regard for human
New School Politics » UN Commits 26,000 Troops to Darfur | 1 08 2007[...] in Darfur. While those without much regard for human life (perhaps Ryan’s post “Darfur: Why I Don’t Give a Damn” best summarizes the perspective of these individuals) continue to emphasize that Darfur is [...]
[...] author of liberal content: While those without much regard
New School Politics » Apparently, I “don’t regard human life” | 1 08 2007[...] author of liberal content: While those without much regard for human life (perhaps Ryan’s post “Darfur: Why I Don’t Give a Damn” best summarizes the perspective of these individuals) continue to emphasize that Darfur is [...]
Well said! You perfectly articulated my exact feelings on the
SkunkTail | 12 08 2007Well said! You perfectly articulated my exact feelings on the subject. You even managed to throw in an Ayn Rand quote you libertarian you.