hypocrite?
one of my favourite bands is u2. i haven't agreed with bono's politics for a while now but it still causes me some pain when something like this is written about him. http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/ the article on slate is about bono avoiding some taxes by moving some of his business out of the country. the hypocrisy is that bono is advocating for governments to give away taxpayer money to aid africa. he just doesn’t want to much of his tax money going there i guess so he and his band mates have moved some of their business to avoid higher taxes in ireland. of course i heard about this news story back in mid-summer because i am a u2 fanboy but it is just starting to get some play here in north america. the hypocrisy is interesting but the larger question is do you think its moral for governments to use your money for whatever charity they see fit or would you rather them take less of your money so that you can decide where to send your charitable dollars?
posted by jc at 9:37 PM
8 Comments:
Since they take lots of my money no matter what, I wouldn't mind seeing 3rd world development become a higher priority. I'd rather see a spending reshuffle than more taxes.
I don't really know if the world would be better off not having governments "force" us to be nice. (by taking our money & spending it on the less fortunate) It'd be nice if everyone chose charities & gave generously, but there are a zillion things we trust the government to choose for us. Where to put roads, what blacktop product to use, whether a road should even be put there in the first place.... none of us have a say in any of that, and they use our tax dollars for it. How is this different?
I think Bono's point is that governments have to help get people interested in justice in 3rd world countries. He sees key things we can do that would make such a tremendous impact if enough people were behind it. Some of them involve money, some just policy.
And yes, Bono does sound like a hypocrit.
what about his politics do you not like?
hey two people posted on my blog. crazy.
kari-well i don't agree that there are a zillion other things i trust government to do. i have a strong distrust in anything the government does... especially roadwork. there as intersection not far from here that they are re-designing for the third time in three years because the last two times they re-designed it, it sucked. for me i would rather give to a non-profit that i could research a bit and find out if they spend their money well or use it all on a bureaucracy. i am not convinced that the aid that we do give is actually helping in africa. according to this article
africa is no richer over all after 40 years of aid. i would like to see bono advocating more free trade, to end corruption of the african governments, and for an end of western nations farm subsidies. those are a couple changes that i think would make a more positive difference.
misha – i disagree with bono’s politics when it involves him lobbying my government to take more of my money to give it to whomever they see fit.
i think part of the problem is that most people do not have an understanding of what government should do. as kari suggested we do allow government to make decisions where to put roads, how to educate our children, and in canada we even let them run our health care system. the usa and canada seem to be heading down the road of handing more and more responsibilities to government rather than to the individual. a libertarian would say that that education, roads, and even the police force should be privatized. a communist would say that we should nationalize everything and rescind the right to private property. well i don’t think most people want to turn canada or the usa into communist countries but they also don’t know when to say no to the government. most people and most political parties in canada[save the libertarians and communist parties] seem to have a rational basis for what the role of government should be. republicans, democrats, liberals, and conservatives are always changing their ideas of the role of government to get elected and stay popular. so what do you have to say about this? is this a problem?
So is there any country who leans more towards libertarianism - less government that you would use as an example Jon? The thing that confuses me is that the very socialist countries like Sweden seem wonderful. Maybe I've only heard one side, but they seem like powerful examples for the positive virtues of letting your government have control.
This whole issue is the main reason I never call myself a democrat - well actually its the number one reason I have no idea what I think. What would happen if the private sector took over many of the governments roles in our society? It sounds sort of good in theory, but I just have no proof that it would actually work.
I don't have enough faith in people. I'm scared of stupid & greedy people. Somehow I like to think the government protects me from them. Maybe that makes me a democrat. : )
But then again, what is the government - its just us people. So if people are stupid, the government is bound to be too.
So maybe the governments role is to represent the people and its main motive is power - staying in power by making people happy. This can lead to shortsightedness, corruption, lies, etc.
If it was all privatized, the main motive for everything would be money. This could lead to greed and the possibility of the ones with the most money becomming very powerful. That scares me.
If privatization is so great, why do we have governments in the first place? In history, didn't serfs, servants, lords, etc all stem from a free market where the rich ended up taking advantage of the poor?
That being said, I am no fan of big government or American politics as they are in general. I just am not convinced Jon's ideas would be better.
I think it comes down to whether or not you believe our insufficient involvement as one of the most wealthy nations on earth at a time when millions are dying constitutes as murder by omission.
I would seperate the issue of business savvy, tax shelters, hypocrisy and petitioning on behalf of the oppressed who are voiceless in a country of plenty.
It sounds like you read his full address at the National Prayer Breakfast. What did you think?
(And hi, by the way :), Kari sent me over...)
PS I also think it's very hard to point a finger of hypocrisy at someone who I would imagine has given more financially, and otherwise, to those he's trying to raise funds for than anyone I know - including myself.
Perhaps his motives in moving off-shore are to protect his assets to continue to give. What percentage is Ireland giving to the cause of fighting AIDS in Africa?
I would just think he's worth a major benefit of my doubt seeing all he has invested while I still sit here and type rather than help more.
Kari - Hong Kong under British rule was one of the most economically free societies in history. The point I was trying to make was not that libertarianism was the answer. I am not a fan of privatized police and military forces. My point was that Communists, Libertarians, and Capitalists all seem to have a moral basis/philosophy for their ideas. But in America and Canada these parties are just fringe parties. The more popular parties do not have strong moral principles. They only pick issues that they think might get them elected. Republicans are growing government faster than anyone since LBJ. Democrats have representatives like Harold Ford that are pretending to be Republicans on social issues. Anyways.
No I don’t believe that serfs, servants, lords, etc. stemmed from a free market where the rich ended up taking advantage of the poor. I don’t know where you would have heard that. The free market has not been around very long. But in the time it has been around it has helped create the greatest advancement in human kind as far as technology is concerned.
Interesting point about Sweden. I wonder if their welfare state will be sustainable. Some say its unsustainable. I read also that the poor in America have a larger income than those in Sweden. In Sweden apparently the poor make about 38% of the median income while in the States its 39% of the median income. I guess I should look into it more though before dismissing it.
Misha – Kari no doubt sent you over here so that you could gang up on me. I think he is being hypocritical but being hypocritical doesn’t necessarily mean what he is advocating is wrong. But neither does the amount he has given to a specific cause make it just for him to take my money by force. No I didn’t read his National Prayer Breakfast speech.
I think the base issue here is what you think the role of government is. Is it to protect individual’s rights or societies rights? If you think the individual’s rights are to be protected than you want to preserve the right of that individual to decide what he/she does with their money. If you are for the rights of society above the individual than I guess you would believe it is for the government to decide how much wealth each person should receive. so if those in power see fit they can come along and take your wealth and redistribute however they see fit. I am for the rights of the individual. And if a person wants to give to Africa he/she will not be stopped. I don’t want to be coerced into giving.
It seems like I took a lot of words here to express a simple idea. Sorry about that. This blogging thing takes up so much time and so far you guys are the only ones who have replied. I need someone on my side so I don’t have to do as much work.
I'll have Kyle check in, he'll argue your side mostly. : )
And I don't wholeheartedly disagree with you... I just don't wholeheartedly agree with you either, so I like hearing what you have to say in response to my "questions".
Next topic??? Maybe you can pull something Michael Moore wrote and claim you wrote it?
Post a Comment
<< Home