Because making charities have only good sides requires ruthlessness and things that aren't so shiny and kid-friendly. The problem is that charities are seen as dispensiaries of love, help, and aid - sometimes to their fault. If you only wanted a 'good' side to charity, you would only help people willing to make their life better. Unfortunately, few charities or government leaders have the quads to actually do that. Usually government-run welfare programs force users (or private charities getting government assistance) to aid regardless of question. The problem with that is that those that really need the help, and can use it, do not get enough, and those that do not need the help, get nothing at all.

That is what the problem is - there are quotas and rules to aid that cause it to not uplift the people that it needs to.

So my question to you is - Do you mind destroying the welfare and charity system as we know it and move it to a system that seeks to help those really willing to change their lives? If so, a majority of charity may be removed, and certain people will invariably die. The system would be better for it, but are you willing to allow them to die?

Haha you couldn't have pulled it off anyways but effort counts.  But the rest of us are actually have a civilized conversation if you ever wish to inject some logic in and join a very interesting discussion.

Wow, your arrogance is incredible. You used to be one of my favorite members, but you've become so cocky and bullish that you've gone way downhill in my eyes. After ripping apart your arguments (even the stupid part about technology vs. social progress, which you had no good rebuttal for), you still act like somehow you were winning our debates, or that I'm illogical.

So how is it up there on your idealogical throne? Comfy? We're all trying to explain to you why the thing you described doesn't happen. I've already explained it through my posts. What else is there to say?

Well my answer to that is once again you are pretending you have exhausted all options when clearly you haven't.  It's a good thing I'm smart enough to know that, otherwise this world would be in an even worse situation.

My solution to this problem, like a solution to most problems, is you attack the source of a problem.  If you are trying to stop an ant infestation you don't simply hunt every single ant down, you find the source (or the queen) and its home nest.  You have to tackle this situation the same way.  Why is charity unaffective?  Or in the question I proposed, why in a world of good people (or for the religious why in a world of an all loving god) does suffering and evil exist?

Well you have to start considering what is the root cause of all this.  Are people simply born into poverty or do create their own poverty?  Are people naturally evil or is evil something they learn?  Or as you said earlier, do you give someone a fish or teach them how to fish?  These are difficult questions obviously which is what I'm trying to get people to discuss. 

In the world we live in, these things aren't so black and white.  For instance when we give out charity to other struggling nations, there is always the chance it actually wont' reach the people (Somalia for instance).  Point is we weren't actually trying to fix the root cause of the issues in Somalia. 

So no I don't accept your question there because you are telling me all options but those have been exhausted when clearly they haven't.  You find something that seeks to fix the actual problem rather than making a sacrifice towards something that won't have fixed it completely.  Now what the root cause is in all of this, well that's the point of this topic.  No one here has even attempted to try and figure out the answer to this question.  Keep beating around the bush of Nazi ideologies or unrealistic expectations, but why not actually take on the question.  What is the root cause? 

But of course, if I were to purely answer that last question without pre-existing knowledge of your false dichotomy, I'd say maybe Che Guevera was right.  World is a shithole and the only way to fix it is forceably.  Considering the opposition here just to the idea of a dream world, maybe he was right.

Wow all you did was commit a false dichotomy and you act like your entire world has been flipped upside down.  Man up.  It's getting pathetic. 

Now, I'm willing to hear your argument again if you don't mind posting it, again but you act as if you making a mistake is impossible.  No one is infallible.

I didn't. And you're proving my point, by the way. Not just with this post, but your previous one. Let me quote you:

"Well my answer to that is once again you are pretending you have exhausted all options when clearly you haven't. It's a good thing I'm smart enough to know that, otherwise this world would be in an even worse situation."

The italicized and underlined line demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. I mean, what happened? You got to college and now you think you're some kind of idealistic genius, or something? Get over yourself. By the way, I already posted my argument several posts back. You've still failed to provide a decent rebuttal, just how I'm wrong and you're right with no decent explanation (again). While I'd love to completely re-write my debate (due to you being lazy), I don't want to have it answered with more questions and idealogical cliches.

I don't think your reading my responses properly.

There *is* a cause of the problem. I will highlight it for you:

Irresponsibility

If in case you don't know what that is, it is something that people partake of that is gender, race and religion-neutral. It causes a large amount of problems in society.

I already told you, and will say it again: the best answer is to develop sustainable living practices in communities and people. I've said that at least twice, and you still say I am not getting to the root of the problem. That is the root of the problem. As others have said, if you give people - American, Hatian, Black, White, Mexican, European - simple aid such as food and water, you can create a blowback effect. If the people are recieving aid that they are unaccustomed to, they can and will develop a dependency on it. The welfare system in America, prior to reforms in the 90's was a great example - although welfare is a good idea, some people developed a dependency on it that were otherwise fit for work. Likewise, when food aid has been given to some African nations, it has increased birthrates well beyond sustainable practices which results in more death and famine. I'm not saying all such aid is bad, but you can never use it as a permanant solution.

You must:

• Give quick aid when it is absolutely, desperately needed (e.g. Haiti)
• Give sustained aid in terms of education and sustainable practices when accepted by communities and governments (which is rarely the case, unfortunately)
• Ensure responsibility by aid-recipients to utilize aid in ways that will sustain benefits

For example, you can look at countries throughout the last century that were brought up from 3rd world status due to responsible citizens and government. As stated, Korea is a great example. South Africa is getting there. Chile is rising to be a major Latin American figure of governmental responsibility. We need more nations like those. But for those examples, you have Zimbabwe, Argentina, Laos and many others who squandered their gifts through political and cultural corruption.

So going back to the core issue, its a lack of responsibility on a lot of peoples' shoulders:

• Irresponsible governments in undeveloped/impoverished countries that are corrupt and power-hungry that steal from the poor and do not re-invest tax money into building infrastructure and education
• Irresponsible governments in developed countries that have corrupt politicians that steal from constituents and give money to others without ensuring the viability of the projects (again, social welfare systems and foreign aid to dictators)
• Irresponsible citizens of underdeveloped/impoverished countries that do not leave the country, or hold their corrupt leaders accountable for their major problems. In America we had corrupt leaders at one time, we drove them (the Brits) into the sea. Even then, many countries revolt only to put another corrupt person in power.
• Irresponsible citizens of developed nations that don't check in on their charities ensuring they are reaching sustainable goals in impoverished countries. Likewise, some are irresponsible and simply do not give of their time/money to help others.

To just reach common ground, because I take this discussion seriously not just petty differences of opinions, I'll agree I'm being arrogant.  But that doesn't make what I say any less credible.  Still an opinion and still one that should be taken seriously until proven otherwise.  You could scream an opinion, but it's not how about how it is presented, only what it is saying.  But, just in my own defense, I'm not presenting it this way to piss of people, just to show them that they can't take the easy way out.  I mean too many times (mainly in political discussions) people think they can get out of a serious answer by simply crafting one like a rhetorician would.  I don't want that in my threads.  I don't need a politician's answer.  I need an actual one. 

Your first post gave me an actual answer except for the last part which I showed you what the problem was with it in a very reasonable manner.  Now once again just for the sake of diplomacy, I'll go back, take both of your posts, and answer them.  Even though I've already commented on one which you did not reply to (funny considering you also complain about  me ignoring yours yet you do the same) and then this discussion can get back on track. 

Not I'm not trying to be rude or arrogant or anything, I'm just wanting people to think and think critically.  I mean no harm or no personal offenses to anyone.  If anyone has felt that, well then I'm sorry that what I said made that happen.

Okay, let's go back to square one then (let's keep this clean):

A politician would tell you that this sort of thing could never be accomplished because the "bad guys" won't cooperate. I would tell you that this sort of thing could never happen because it goes against human nature. It is our very human instinct to form groups and fight. This sort of thing will never truly go away, no matter how advanced we become. Right now, we do not have the resources to sustain a world of 7 billion people. That requires food, water, shelter, materials, energy, etc. There's not enough to go around. There's always going to be countries that have it really good, ones that have it average, and ones that have it bad (with many nations falling in varying degrees in between). Now, you could distribute the wealth and resources more evenly, but you know what that's called and I'm sure you're against it more than anyone. So either there's a collaboration and sharing of resources through government (which is pretty much socialism, and wouldn't work since so many governments are selfish, aggressive, and incompetent), or sharing between citizens. The latter also doesn't work, since most people are simply uncaring and selfish. Again, human nature. One could try their best to change this, but it will never really happen.

I feel like I'm just going around in circles. The type of world you're describing is never possible, at least not with humans.

Wow, nice to know someoen can critically on such deep issues.  Actually, for the most part I agree with about everything you say.  Things I've actually already stated in the thread nonetheless, and in the post above but indeed very good points.  Obviously very well thought out.

Only issues some might hold with this (although not I as I think this is the best way to do it), is that this doesn't taken into account the human condition.  Well basically, nature vs. nurture.  If indeed humans are a product of their envirnoment (what I think) then if you fix the environment to have sustainability and good character you will have an ideal world.  But if there is a notion of human nature, what if humans are naturally greedy and selfish. 

Like Hobbes did in Leviathan, might have to setup a part of the world to balance out that human nature.  Or maybe I'm simply misinterpreting what you are saying as you might think there is a human nature, but obviously there would need to be something that even controls humans.  Maybe control is the best way to have an ideal world.  Oh well I'm just rambling now.  Good post.