Hacker News Reader

Comment by vorpalhex | Hacker News Reader

You give your sister $100. You find out later that she uses $50 of that money to buy heroin and inject it in herself.

Do you keep giving her the $100?

Absolutely not! This isn't even a real question.

If you directly enable a person or group of people or country to harm themselves and others, you have a duty to stop doing it.

If US remittances are directly fueling the cartel which beats, rapes, murders and even engages in torture, then not only may the US cease that but it is plainly ethically bound to do so.

Yes, this will make it hard for Grandma to buy a car.

You can't fund the people who torture and rape random Mexican farmers so Grandma can buy a car.

> If you really want to eliminate the cartels make recreational drugs legal.

While murdering drug users with their own money may seem like a clever solution, you are in fact still doing murder just in long form.

View on HN

> You can't fund the people who torture and rape random Mexican farmers so Grandma can buy a car.

If you have paid taxes, or participated in the United States of Americas economy, you have directly funded the rape of indigenous Americans, the bombing of Venezuelan fisherman and Iranian schoolgirls.

How do you think the rest of the world should react to this? Total economic embargo towards the US? Leveling the continent? How should Americans who oppose rape and murder of children (like you seem to be) react to the fact that they fund rapes and murders?

You pay taxes in the US? You are directly enabling a country to harm others.

You ever buy a phone? You are directly enabling a chain of groups to harm people (in the name of creating that phone).

You ever give a dollar to a homeless man? You might be directly contributing to them harming themselves (or possibly just letting them buy food/drink).

Heck even your example about your sister, I think some people would argue that it's still the moral choice.

Clearly there's a spectrum here. Black and white thinking and statements aren't helping and shouldn't be the basis for policy decisions.

You can and should be making explicit choices in that framework.

You should not buy phones connected to the mistreatment of the Uighur population - and that is doable.

If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.

And yes, that is literally why I don't support direct cash handouts to the homeless. You can feed them and house them, you can't throw money at them and expect a good outcome.

You should not cast your money as to do harm. If your money is the difference between your sister being homeless or not, then stop giving her money and pay her rent. Buy her grocery cards.

But if you directly contribute to harm, knowably, you are enabling that harm. This is not some weird novel part of ethics. It is in fact black and white.

> If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.

Actually, I have heard that it’s very hard, if possible at all, to surrender American citizenship. It’s a real problem for some people who had the misfortune of being born on American soil.

Not only is it very doable but the US consulate in your new country will literally help you fill out the paperwork.

1. Move to a new country

2. Present proof you have a new citizenship (you can't generally be "nationless" by international law or you end up remaining a citizen of whatever country you were last a citizen of)

3. Fill out the paperwork and pay $450. The consulate will assist you if you need help.

If you can follow the instructions to bake a cake, you can surrender your US citizenship. It's neither difficult nor expensive.

> If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.

Well, no, you aren't necessarily without paying a special additional tax to the US government, so it doesn't really solve the problem of believing that paying US taxes is active participation in morally intolerable actions.

The renunciation fee is $450. That is less than a single year of taxes.

> And yes, that is literally why I don't support direct cash handouts to the homeless. You can feed them and house them, you can't throw money at them and expect a good outcome.

You maintain this despite all the research showing that this is the most effective way to help people?

There is no reputable study suggesting direct cash handouts help the longterm persistantly homeless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com