“That is certainly a more worthy cause than coercing Americans into giving money to other relatively wealthy Americans.”

Why?

Listen, Chuck: If you think saving the lives of poor Africans is a worthy use of government coercion – that is to say, if you think it is okay to put a gun to another human’s head and say to them “give money to this poor person or I will shoot you,” then fine. That is certainly a more worthy cause than coercing Americans into giving money to other relatively wealthy Americans. At least you have that going for you.

But don’t claim that this act is unobjectionable. I can think of thousands of other worthy causes too — adequate housing, food, education, heathcare — the list goes on and on. There is already a word for people who think that it is unobjectionable for the government to try to solve these problems, and that word is not “libertarian.”

There’s a saying that “Hard cases make bad law.”

Since we’re talking about a case in which the lives of millions of human beings are at stake, I dare say that the question of adherence to an ideology on the size and scope of government at this point is moot. This is a situation of lifeboat ethics. If a little internal incoherence on the part of myself and other small government types would lead to saving the lives of millions, well, I say bring it.

If there are cases where government action could solve a coordination problem, wouldn’t encourage moral hazard, etc, etc. I’m ready to violate the sacred tenets of minarchism to save a few million souls.

So congratulations, Micha, you are officially more hardcore than me.

Whenever someone starts talking about a “New Marshall Plan,” it’s time to holler “check, please.”

Revoked.

It’s not helpful to lump all government development aid in one pot and then have a thumbs up/thumbs down vote on whether it’s effective or not.

We would profit from a subtler, more careful analysis. Certain types of aid could probably reap enormous benefits if calculated in “lives saved/dollars spent.” I’m thinking about the production, purchase, distribution and use of DDT to fight malaria in Africa as an example, provided that it’s done efficiently. I don’t think it would impossible or objectionable for government assistance to help achieve this goal.

Didn’t the U.S. income tax start out at around 1/2% as well? We all know how that turned out…

As for social security, I think you’re blinded by your own cognitive bias. First, there is a moral argument for private property–it’s called capitalism. If these private accounts were really private, I could take them out, invest them where I wanted, buy bubble gum cards, etc. But that’s not what they are, and I don’t see the point in pretending they are.

Social security is old age insurance, and I’m glad it’s there because I sure don’t want mom living in the convered garage. You can complain about the moral injustice of forced savings, but that isn’t solved by “private accounts.” It works as a form of life insurance in which everyone who dies before 65 supports the superannuated. Private accounts, in which wealth is passed on and not pooled, makes sustaining the system that much more expensive. We could have a system like car insurance where individuals are forced to buy some minimum level of old age insurace. Maybe it would be cheaper, maybe it wouldn’t. But private accounts are no solution at all because they are not private and they’re not insurance.

Will we ever be able to pay back the $1.8 trillion that foreigners have lent to us? That is uncertain. Many libertarians argue we should default on these charitable loans.

The United States is by far the largest recipient of foreign aid. Our Magical Giant would collapse if the Chinese and Japanese Magical Giants discontinued their charitable contributions.

Be careful what you wish for…