Responding to Beggars
stallman.org
stallman.org
After 3 months in San Francisco, I'm noticing the pendulum swinging again in the other direction. I don't see anyone paying attention to the homeless, and I know a few pennies here or there aren't going to solve the problem, so I am once again starting to become cold and removed.
I cannot stand saying no to people on the streets, but I have not found a way to get them off the streets either. I promise myself that right now is not the time, and one day I will make a difference.
It feels naive and stupid to think this way. I am 22.
That said, I like Stallman's response. Gather more information, and act on your values. It's more human, imo.
[] the cynicism part comes from things like the woman who for three years now has been trying to get together the bus fair to Hull, or some years ago seeing someone who earlier had been sat on a corner begging get into a car that appeared to be his and drive away
http://lesswrong.com/lw/37f/efficient_charity/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa...
I'm not saying they don't deserve help. I'm saying that your money can do more good elsewhere, which is not something I'm willing to argue as being blatantly obvious. If one subscribes to the idea that there is a continuum of "deserving" to "undeserving" poor most of the drug addicts fall under undeserving and the USA is no longer willing to imprison people indefinitely for being mentally ill so they're probably beyond help. Very possibly also better off because mental hospitals are the closest I have ever seen to Hell, but beyond help.
"Donating" money directly is difficult to do with respect and pride for giver and givee... I try to get it right because I feel i could end up poor, old, and drunk on the street. Some beggars strike me as being somewhat entrepreneurial :-).
Try to treat each situation as unique.
Occasionally I will give a beggar money for no reason, occasionally pity, occasionally random, occasionally respect. I accept sometimes I am a chump, but I would rather err on being a chump than be a selfish thoughtless jerk.
When a traveller in poorer countries I become much more generous - the price of a beer at home, or a birthday card, can make a big difference for many. Any person who can fly to a 3rd world country can afford to be very generous. 1st world travellers with excuses for being tight piss me off.
The difficulty is giving without demeaning the receiver ... respect.
It isn't a matter of being greedy. It's avoiding counterproductive behavior.
My take on this is that everyone has a different way of being most effective in helping others. To really improve their situation, a homeless person needs someone who can invest a lot more time and effort. So if you want to help them, give to charities that work with them. In our individual capacity, we are more effective in helping someone who already has a platform. Consider financing the entire education of a child. That is more effective use of the money than distributing it piecemeal to several homeless people.
I sometimes think that is just a handy excuse.
I actually enjoy seeing tourists get taken advantage of, and actively encourage it with my own behaviour.
I often admire go-getting capitalist tourist scams or annoying vendors - at times even illegal or immoral behaviour (people take risks because they need to, not usually out of choice).
Love the rest of your comment... exactly my point that we can all find ways to truely help (while avoiding ways that damage).
I actually enjoy seeing tourists get taken advantage
of, and actively encourage it with my own behaviour.
E.g. vendor selling something for 10x what a local would pay. I don't haggle much and admire chutzpah. If someone steals my wallet because that is the only income they can get, I won't like it (but I am not about to go hungry, get rickets or fail to get healthcare).
Obviously hard to delineate what is 'bad', or what are downstream effects.
I can't say I admired the chutzpah, though.
The thief took a minor risk, earned less than 20 euros, and cost me days worth of my time and more than 100x that amount of money, to replace documents I hadn't realized would be so difficult to replace (the big one: my US driver's license, and I didn't live in the US anymore; replacing the US credit cards was also non-trivial, but less expensive).
The small amount of cash they got was about commensurate with the risk they took (fairly small); but the waste entailed was huge. I would much rather have been mugged and had my cash taken, and my watch as well -- i.e., items valuable to the mugger, not simply my wallet (which contained things mostly only valuable to me). Or they could have tossed the cashless wallet in a trashcan nearby. They didn't (I searched them all).
The real cost to society of this kind of theft and waste is not so much monetary; it's more psychological. That experience burned into my head fairly well that there are plenty of people around who care so little about me, they'll happily take whatever they can from me, regardless of the suffering it causes.
I have a suspicion that it's the series of experiences like this that turn people from political liberals to conservatives as they age -- they feed easily into racism and classism, they turn us from thinking "how can I help people who need it" to "fuck 'em -- they'll do the same to me if they could". Etc..
The question is how to help kids though... I have tried gifting useful stuff to local schools, once I helped teach English to a class. Leaving coins where children might find them seems good to me. Hiding small toys down low is fun too - and is suitable anywhere in the world!
I feel churlish if I do not share my 1st world worth when enjoying the hospitality of other countries... but it takes some ingenuity to come up with ways to do so that are good for all involved...
Once I was walking up to a friend's apartment. Just a few meters from his door, a guy with a desperate face approached and asked me to borrow some money for gas/something, so that he could get to his wife who was in the hospital (red flag). I refused, and then he proceeded to tell me the exact address he was going to, handed me his license and car keys to check. I felt ashamed for being such a cold person, and gave him ten bucks. Just as he was turning around the corner, my friend who was leaving his apt saw him and said -"did you give that guy money? He is always around" :(
Never gave out money since. I try to make up for it by being very straight about taxes and civilization in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Issue
I like this approach because I know that they have some degree of control. For example, they can't spend all the money on booze/drugs because otherwise they can't purchase more stock. It's a start.
That said, I like Stallman's method. I might try that sometime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spare_Change_News
There just are more homeless people that gather there than can viably all sell the newspaper.
The idea of getting them work, as small as selling magazines is, is a great idea.
I personally follow a similar approach to Stallman here in Australia and I agree that it definitely is hard when you go to another country. I spent two years in the Philippines where poverty is common and at first I had no real idea what to do as we were constantly being asked for money, every day.
Another idea I stand by is not too judge too quickly the homeless or so in saying "Oh, they'd just go spend it on drugs or alcohol."
What I know for sure is that I can be polite to them. Recognize them as humans, not treat them as lepers. If they engage me in conversation ask their name, where they are from. But usually ignore them on the ask. Because I can't rationalize that it would help.
But it's not an easy question.
Available on iTunes:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/but-for-the-grace-of-god/id...
If you watch it and like it please write a review.
There, I solved all of your altruism problems. You're welcome.
Oh wait, were we talking about beggars? Nevermind, they should be held to a higher standard than the Fortune 500. They can afford it. (Billions and their own jobs aren't riding on it.)
I can't remember where I got it from, but I carry a pack of cigarettes around. When I get asked for change, I remember to offer the person a cigarette instead. If you're on the street then lung cancer is the least of your problems, and it's a way of showing support to the person but in a way that doesn't contribute to their pattern.
Our culture has some strong messages about charity and a taboo about questioning it. People tend to give to things that are branded as charity in order to comply with this message. The result can often be an office full of people in a nice location, pulling down wages, and doing very little meaningful work towards the cause. It is itself a variation on the deceptive begging pattern, feeding on popular ideas about charity.
I think the best approach for helping people is to look out for things directly in your sphere where you can see how your action will lead to a goood result, and then act at that level.
Look at the long view. It only takes a few people to keep doing that, and they'll keep existing at that level instead of finding a better way to get by. You're enabling them.
People in the first category are actively looking for a way to get back on their feet. Giving them money is better than giving them a meal, a ticket, or a bit of clothing. They know what they need most, and will spend their money accordingly. Insisting that they choose from my list of pre-approved spending options does more harm than good, from a utility standpoint. From an emotional standpoint, it's condescending and demeaning.
In the second case, the person has few employment options and a weak support network, otherwise they would not be out on the street. They won't use the money I give them as well as people in the first category, but who am I to say what they want or need? I'm not trying to solve a social problem. I'm trying to ease the suffering of an individual.
It's difficult to distinguish people in the third group from the people in the second group, since mental illness and addiction often work in tandem. I don't bother to try. Anyway, the addict's hierarchy of needs is roughly: Food > Drugs > Shelter. If I buy them a sandwich, they can spend the remainder of their money on drugs. If they're a serious addict, a lack of charity won't stand between them and the drugs they need. If they can't scrounge up enough money through legitimate means, petty crime is the next step. Overcoming addiction is a complicated process that comes from within. You can't starve the addict into going clean. If I give a homeless person a dollar and that money goes towards drugs, that's a shame, but at least it eases their suffering for a moment.
Again, giving money to a homeless person isn't a long-term solution to social problems. It's a small gesture from one individual to another. They have a cut, so I give them a band-aid. Homelessness is a difficult and complicated problem. Withholding charity won't suddenly result in homeless people straightening up and flying right. The reality is that many of them, at least in the short term, are unemployable. Withholding charity just increases their suffering.
I think that's why a lot of people do it.
I can't fairly condense the salient points, so I'll just encourage you to watch the video - it's long, but well worth it. I can honestly say it changed how I evaluate these sorts of situations (aside from being a very fine round of debate, but that's more of an acquired taste).
(Just to be clear: I was not one of the debaters, just happened to be lucky enough to be in the audience).
Which direction did it shift your views?
Pardon me if this was mentioned in the debate — unfortunately I'm not in a position to watch the video at the moment — but the worst case in giving money to beggars is not just that the money is "wasted".
In the UK, the overwhelming majority of beggars are not homeless, and are simply begging to fund a drug addiction (usually to 'Class A' drugs such as heroin). A survey by Westminster Council found 86 percent of people begging spend the money they receive on drugs and alcohol, and seven out of ten of those arrested for begging (begging in public is illegal in the UK, although enforcement of the law is sporadic) had Class A drugs in their system (see: http://www.thamesreach.org.uk/news-and-views/campaigns/givin...)
In other words, when you give money to a beggar in the UK, you are more than likely funding a Class A drug addiction. An addiction that drastically reduces that person's life expectancy, and increases their chances of premature death due to an overdose.
One trick I'm trying this year is that whenever I'm asked for cash or see a bum asking for cash and don't give any (typically because I don't want to or because I want to give less than $20 and I only have a card (and I don't want to give any time)), the next time I'm at a computer I increment a total on my home system by some small delta. It represents the total I intend to donate all at once near the end of the year to where I think has the most expected utility.
In theory "homelessness" is a solved problem in the UK. In practice, there are people who sleep on the streets and there are people who are effectively homeless but who have short term accommodation and there are plenty of beggars.
The situation in the UK is somewhat unique. As you mention, homelessness is not really an issue. All homeless people are entitled to benefits to cover accommodation and food.
Unfortunately people still tend to associate begging with homelessness, when the link between the two is tenuous at best. The overwhelming majority of beggars are not actually homeless, and most are begging to fund a drug addition (see: http://www.thamesreach.org.uk/news-and-views/campaigns/givin...)
There really is no need for anyone in the UK to beg in order to survive, hence why begging in public is illegal.
I find it hard to distinguish between their methods, the only substantial difference being much larger turnover for the 'respectable' marketing and advertising experts.
If you feel guilty (and why wouldn't you? it's only natural), give money to charitable organizations which help the homeless. They know how to put the money to better use.
I've seen a little girl being taught to beg once. She was as beautiful and clean as a young girl can be, and she was with a slightly older boy in a subway. He was leading her by the hand and showing her the ropes... what to say, how to say it, how to act... Most people there thought that it was so very charming and paid well for the feeling. All I did was to try hard as I could not to hit something or somebody, because I was watching a soul being mutilated.
i.e. I don't want to give someone money that they'll use to further destroy their life with drugs/alcohol/whatever. I don't want to be complicit in that action. If that's too 'morally' or 'judgemental' for some people, so be it.
Now, I'm more than happy to buy them some food, transportation, etc. Or even better, spend some time with them (when possible) and treat them like a real person for a few minutes.
Even if they use my money to drink themselves into oblivion, thats their choice and I'm happy that I can provide them with the means to do whatever they want with their lives.
That said, I do prefer to give to certain types of people. It can be hard to really tell how needy someone is, but generally I don't give to children (this encourages parents to not send them to school), those who occupy prime locations (main street, outside a supermerket etc. - as I've seen these being worked by groups who muscle others out of their patch - and besides they make plenty of money from others there), and those who hassle every passing stranger.
A similar ethical question: Should we eat animals? Some people object to this citing the misery, pain, etc. that the animals have to endure. But suppose we create a certain pig/chicken/sheep clone that is incapable of thinking (or, as in http://www.amazon.com/The-Pig-That-Wants-Eaten/dp/0452287448, actually wants to be eaten): Would your attitude on this matter change? I think it should not.
The way I treat entities with less power than me (homeless people, animals) wholly depends on me and not inputs from them.
Of course, I don't follow that rule perfectly because saying no or ignoring somebody makes me feel like a dick. But I'm not going to pretend that giving money to a panhandler is ever a rational act.
In contrast to Stallman's experience, I was never rebuffed - occasionally asked to go outside the station to get vegetarian food (seemed reasonable to me) and once asked if I could also buy food for someones girlfriend as well (chutzpah pays!). Some of these people where interesting, some less so, just the same as any random sample of the human race.
I don't find myself in those situations in my current living/working situation, but I like to keep my mind open to these possibilities
I had a guy run up to me just as I was getting on the bus to ask if I could spare fare for him too. I dug it out and handed it over and he turned around and walked off. I thought that was pretty funny, especially as the fare was a quarter.
It's also a possibility though that the beggar wanted to be efficient and accumulate more money for other fares throughout the day, just trying to be efficient.
This situation is so bad that the country had to pass a law giving the death penalty to anybody dismembering children for the purposes of turning them into beggars - because people were doing that on a large scale.
One of the glorious benefits of being a member of the EU is that we now have to put up with organized gangs of beggars coming in from Romania, Bulgaria etc harassing us on our streets. (The leftists have proposed that we add these people to our welfare rolls and give them their own apartments - an entitlement not available even to Swedish citizens, mind you. Of course, the only reasonable response is to institute a sufficiently vague law against vagrancy and then deport them.)
If you have a problem with Bulgarian people in general, then, well, that is called xenophobia or more simply racism.
If you have a problem with Bulgarian criminals, then complain to your police force. How come you able to spot such criminals so easily while they cannot? Did you make precise and detailed reports to the police about cases you witnessed, experienced personally or know from local hearsay?
Talking about apartments, do you agree on the principle that access to public housing should be given to those most in need? Do you also agree on the principle that the needs for every lawful person should be addressed regardless of their country of origin? If you do, what is the problem them? If you do not, why?
Question for the US readers: do scenes like those depicted in Steinbeck's novel The grapes of wrath still happen? Are people from rural zones like Oklahoma's countryside treated as filthy dangerous foreigners in California? Because that is what we are seeing and experiencing right now in the EU.
I do disagree though that deporting is the way to go. The problem is real, and shoving it under the carpet doesn't really solve much of it. What is needed is an EU-wide solution, and it needs to be well-thought and well implemented, because the problem isn't easier.
We've had a lot of negative feedback here in Romania because of the various criminals we exported to Italy. To my surprise when I went to visit Rome I found surprisingly large, very prosper and very hard-working Romanian minority. Yes, we exported beggars and criminals, but the number of "legitimate" immigrants was dwarfing them.
This is the main purpose of an open EU - to move labor, capital and markets where they are naturally needed. I'm pretty sure even northern countries like Germany, France or Holland (and quite possibly even Sweden) benefit from highly trained immigrants from Eastern Europe. I personally know Romanian doctors who lives in each of those countries. Sadly, Romania can't afford to retain good doctors - but this is how an open market works.
Ha! At least two parties (the gangs and the Romanians in Romania) are profiting.
> I do disagree though that deporting is the way to go. The problem is real, and shoving it under the carpet doesn't really solve much of it. What is needed is an EU-wide solution, and it needs to be well-thought and well implemented, because the problem isn't easier.
Yes. My criticism concerns only various leftists who believe that Romania's (and Bulgaria's, etc) problems should be solved by Sweden alone.
The Swedes likely don't have a problem with Bulgarians. He says Bulgarians and Romanians so he means gypsies. He may not know this but even if he does he's Swedish so saying that it's a gypsy problem would get him in shit socially.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/myqdy/why_do_euro...
What's with your xenophobia/racism haunch? It is not unreasonable to discuss such effects due to relative open - e.g. compared to US - borders.
Last year in Germany I myself saw 'gangs of beggars'. While not a problem, it annoys me when on touristic places you'll get asked for money every two minutes from one of the (romanian) women with child. It feels like an industry.
It is an industry. Most of these gangs are exactly that: organised gangs. In a recent documentary in Ireland, they studied the problem and even followed them back to their own countries (where they lived in mansions). One of the women they followed carried a baby around for 14 hours while begging and it turned out it wasn't even hers - a number of the women shared this baby as a tool to gain more money while begging.
A friend of mine once overheard a beggar talking on the phone complaining that he only made €500 that day...
Not all beggars are like this, of course. Some genuinely fell on hard times. I have no problem buying someone food or paying their bus fare (if I have the money), or donating money to charities which help these people directly, but I refuse to ever give someone who is on the street begging for money anything.
If he hadn't said it, replies would have expressed surprise that the prosperous Swedes had resorted to aggressive organised criminal behaviour, and there would have been speculation on why that is.
There would also have been questions on why the government hasn't done anything about it yet, which he also addressed in his comment.
Stop telling us what we can and can't talk about.
Unfortunately the legal system here (and I assume elsewhere in the EU) doesn't cover this situation so there is little I or the police can do.
Talking about apartments, do you agree on the principle that access to public housing should be given to those most in need?
I think the point was that they do not need them and even their own citizens don't get this.
> If you have a problem with Bulgarian people in general, then, well, that is called xenophobia or more simply racism.
Presumably you are Bulgarian and I have offended you by not being nice to those compatriots of you who are begging on my streets. I am actually kind of sad for that, because I'm sure you and I could in fact get along quite beautifully. But the fact still remains: when I go out, I don't wish to be accosted by beggars. This is human nature.
> If you have a problem with Bulgarian criminals, then complain to your police force. How come you able to spot such criminals so easily while they cannot? Did you make precise and detailed reports to the police about cases you witnessed, experienced personally or know from local hearsay?
My bloody point was that vagrancy SHOULD be a crime. It ISN'T at present. (Also, the police are corrupt and willing to overlook crime when it suits them.)
> Do you also agree on the principle that the needs for every lawful person should be addressed regardless of their country of origin?
Certainly not. I find it totally absurd that if I (a Swedish citizen who's paid a lot of tax to the Swedish state) were to wind up on the streets, the Swedish state could quite possibly refuse me even a bed at a homeless shelter, at the same as a foreigner should be given his or her own apartment, no questions asked. This is not just. It's borderline evil.
No, I am not a Bulgarian or a Romanian. But yes, I am offended by people who use nationalities to denote groups of criminals. I am not that old, yet I have heard "Albanian", "Italian", "Spanish", "Polish", "Romanian", "Turkish", "Portuguese", "African", "Brazilian", "Senegalese", "Nigerian", "Egyptian", "Moroccan", "Chinese", "Arab" and many other demonyms used as an insult and to identify the latest and biggest threat to EU security and welfare systems. I find it difficult to think that all the Albanians, Italians, Spanish, Polish, etc., are all criminals. I am pretty sure that each country has its own fair share of criminals and that many of these flew to other countries in order to exploit their there-unknown cons, but I doubt that this warrants anyone the possibility to call out a whole nation as a problematic issue.
> when I go out, I don't wish to be accosted by beggars. This is human nature.
Isn't compassion part of human nature as well?
> My bloody point was that vagrancy SHOULD be a crime. It ISN'T at present.
It is in many EU countries. Many people in those countries complain just like you do.
An old saying of my country says «Never say "I will never drink from that spring"». You never know what may happen. There are many homeless people on the streets right now that used to be plain middle-class workers only 5 years ago. [1] Also, vagrancy, and homelessness in general, are on the rise. [2] An hungry person will not care much about anti-vagrancy laws. It will came to you and ask for help.
> (Also, the police are corrupt and willing to overlook crime when it suits them.)
This is your problem, not foreigners' problems. Your police is subject to bribery from gangs from other countries, what is the most effective action? Fix your police system or kick out gang X waiting for gang Y to start bribing the police?
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/29/middle-class-family... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17303892
Straw man. I have never suggested that all Bulgarians (or Romanians) are criminals. For Christ's sake, I even acknowledge that the current beggars on the streets where I live AREN'T criminals!
> Isn't compassion part of human nature as well?
I pay a 30% income tax (and my employer pays an additional 30% in payroll taxes, which is of course simply a hidden tax on me) and then 25% VAT on everything I buy. This pays for much welfare. I think it's /exceedingly/ compassionate of me to give away such a large part of my income - certainly more than the Christian concept of tithe. My compassion is not endless, however. And neither is yours.
But I wonder, why aren't the Bulgarians compassionate towards their own countrymen? Why don't you criticize them?
> This is your problem, not foreigners' problems. Your police is subject to bribery from gangs from other countries, what is the most effective action? Fix your police system or kick out gang X waiting for gang Y to start bribing the police?
I never suggested it was the foreigners' problems. Please stop your fucking straw man arguments.
Us Romanians are more used to being confused with gypsies than Bulgarians, I guess. Gypsies even when to the trouble of renaming themselves to "Rroms", so they are more easily confused with Romanians.
I'm guessing you just want to shut out views that are at all critical of immigration, or even just seem to be. You want to shut down that discussion entirely.
I'd downvote you, but that button doesn't appear for me.
I don't want to get into an argument here, but its hard not to refute the views you seem to be imposing on me.
I'd say that that part is similar, and it is not something I was aware of. So, I find this informative and contributing to the discussion.
Some of the other language might be viewed as a bit slanted. Or it might be viewed as a bit ironic. Given that uncertainty, I didn't find it too extreme. (Although, I am in the U.S. and so separated from the particular circumstance, and my judgment/opinion is of limited value.)
P.S. I should add that I have not yet read all the ensuing responses, which I am now getting to and which might change my opinion somewhat. But, based just on the original comment, I think the above applies to it.
P.P.S. HN is getting way too political. Reading through this thread reinforces this impression. Makes me sorry to have commented on it. OTOH, I rather liked the description of RMS's approach, and I found it informative to read comments on the "industry" behind some of the world's begging. (To which begging, like many other commentors here, I have a hard time formulating a coherent response that I find helpful, practical, and coherent.)
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15932840,00.html
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15921927,00.html
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20120503-42321.html
http://www.thelocal.se/31650/20110126/
http://www.economist.com/node/6919139
...etc.
Your links don't make any sense. The DDR used slave labor? Ingvar Kamprad uses various tax avoidance schemes? Did you choose them simply because they are related to Sweden?
4 Free movement of services
5 Free movement of people
5.1 Free movement of workers
5.2 Free movement for the non-economically active
5.3 The Schengen Area
I also invite you to read the labels of ie. the plying wooden chairs and crude mugs from which all those world-mesmerising profits arise.
For some reason you are unwilling to come right out and simply say what you think about IKEA, thus leaving me to read your mind. Presumably your argument goes something like this:
"Ingvar Kamprad is Swedish, Ingvar Kamprad used forced labor in the GDR, therefore all Swedish people must pay for these sins by putting up with foreign beggars on their streets".
The Swiss also like to cherry pick the good stuff from the Europe, just like everybody. Not taking responsibility of the economic externalities, as the euphemism goes, is not sustainable. Economically speaking of the West, the short-term advantages of this short-sightedness are over.
Who says I am? I am not Ingvar Kamprad.
I think you as an individual then should be slapped with a visa requirement to visit all other nations in Europe. Then you'll have fun strutting around with your papers to all the different embassies - which I guess you'd certainly prefer than having foreign beggars around. Or you could stay in Sweden forever if you don't even want to do that. We certainly wouldn't mind.
Sweden and the west got rich through luck and exploitation. You are privileged. You are lucky. Recognize that and act on it.
Since you disagree with Muzza, I would suggest that we create a partnership in which we bring every african beggar to your country (Sweden?). That's a lot, and it'll probably severely mess up your country, but hey, here's your opportunity to act on your words!
/sarcasm
On a more serious note, would you want all the beggars in the world to go to Sweden? Why not? Oh, because it's too much and it wouldn't be good for Sweden right? Well every person has a different tolerance threshold for "what is good for Sweden". Maybe someone would argue with you that making Sweden an asylum for all the world's beggars is the ultimate way of repairing for your sins, and then call you a fascist for not wanting to do it.
Well you're doing exactly the same with Muzza. What you consider something very reasonable (hosting Roumanian beggars and providing them with apartments or whatever) is seen as unacceptable by someone else.
I guess I disliked your patronizing tone: people have different opinions and tolerance, and yours is no better or worse than any other.
West has gotten rich because of its culture which allowed for development of science and technology (or at least hindered it the least), private property and enterprise, stable governments, honored contracts, and -- perhaps the cause of all those freedoms -- no single hegemon for much of its history and so a ruthless competition between the states on all field.
You're confusing cause with effect. It's not exploitation that made Europeans do much better than the rest of the world, they were already doing much better which allowed them to conquer the world.
* Or more generally: white Western European.
You happen to be born in sweden, they happen to be born in romania. If the tables were turned I'm sure you wouldn't think too highly of people with your opinion.
I have never denied anyone their humanity, only insisted that I shouldn't have to support them.
> A swedish life is worth no more or less than a romanian one.
If we are all equal, why do the left insist that a Romanian arriving in Sweden should have more entitlements than a Swedish citizen?
Instead of complaining, you better appeal to your fellow citizens and solve it
He did explain why that wasn't being done.
> Instead of complaining, you better appeal to your fellow citizens and solve it.
Wouldn't that involve some complaining?
Anyway, I notice you didn't say that to wilfra. Why doesn't he get accused 'complaining'?
Why didn't you try to solve the issues in your post with action instead of with complaining?
What happens if they naturally learn to collect money, and we record these activities through our hearsay? If we expect them to be able to break a $20?