Live-Aid: 25 Years Later

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Many years ago, I think in the 1990's, I heard an American rock critic on VH-1 mention the band Queen's performance at Live Aid as the greatest concert of all time. This opinion was affirmed in England, as it won a poll of "greatest gig of all time" in 2005.

The performance was 25 years ago today.

Who Cares About Israel?

The other day I heard a caller on a public radio show rant against Arabs, how racist and dangerous Arabs are, that any clear-thinking people would love to have Jews in their country, how Jewish settlers in Gaza helped the economy tremendously before they were pulled out, and how too many Americans are too trusting of Arabs and don't see these issues clearly.

But why should I, as an American, give a damn one way or another? Yes, there is that $3 billion in foreign aid given to Israel every year, which allows Israel's enemies to blame America for Israel's actions. This in turn creates diplomatic headaches and the threat of terrorist attacks that probably cost Americans closer to $300 billion/year in Defense, Homeland Security, and opportunity costs. And this leaves out the possibility that America made war on Iraq and is threatening war with Iran in large part because those countries don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. But all of this only goes to show that foreign aid to Israel is bad policy. To cut it off does not mean we are taking the side of Arabs. There is such a thing as neutrality.

If a similar dispute existed in Africa involving the same size of territory and number of people, we would probably ignore it entirely and call it "tribal" warfare - perhaps blaming it on the artificial boundaries created by European imperialists. A similar dispute in Southern or East Asia also would only barely get our attention. To the extent we are interested in the Balkans or meddle in the affairs of ex-Soviet Republics, we do so only to humiliate Russia. The U.S. may be more interested if something like it existed in the Americas - only because of our historically paternalistic attitude toward our neighbors - but even then it wouldn't consume nearly as much of our time and attention as does Israel, which is the size of Massachusetts.

Of course, every conflict is unfortunate. Human suffering, particularly war-related suffering is tragic anywhere. But human suffering outside of the U.S., and not caused by the U.S., is not the U.S.'s problem.

Some would try to persuade me that it's "obvious" that Israel is in the right, or that it's "obvious" that the Palestinians are victims of Israeli aggression, and that it's my "duty" to "see this clearly." But why should I even bother to study this, or form an opinion at all, when I don't bother to do so with most other national and ethnic strife in the world? This conflict is several hundred miles away from oil fields. The region may be of interest to some religious people, but they can donate money to the Israeli government on their own if they so choose. There is simply no vital U.S. interest on the east coast of the Mediterranean.

Why should I mourn the death of an Israeli more than anybody else? Because of his religion? Because he lives in a democracy? Because of his skin color? These are all very bad reasons. The Israeli is no more entitled to American protection, aid, or sympathy than any other person on the planet. No more than a Somalian or Albanian. Or Palestinian.

Clash of Values

Small, impoverished nations can't really go to war against military superpowers in any case. But something about this statement from Bill Frist struck me as a bit odd: "People do not go to war with people who have saved their children's lives."

Right. People dependent on government welfare or foreign aid aren't resentful. They love the idleness and lack of opportunity. Cycles of dependency bring happiness and harmony. No riots, no terrorism. Good one.

Of course, he sensible solution to reducing poverty in places like Africa is to stop the foreign aid already! But the issue isn't about reducing poverty, it is about the moral insistence that government(s) must do something reduce poverty.

Imagine two options; a) declining poverty in a free market economy; b) a permanent and fairly high level of poverty with an activist government "committed" to eliminating poverty.

This is kind of like these options: a) declining drug abuse where drugs are de-criminalized; b) fairly high drug use with a government committed to eliminating poverty.

The problem with "a" in both instances is that it is value-neutral. At least "b" is a reflection of society's "values." Many people would prefer "b" in both instances even knowing they are bound to fail, because they don't want to live in a society where an a supposedly amoral government is unconcerned about poverty and drug abuse. Even if winning the "Wars" on Poverty and Drugs is impossible, we must still fight these wars to preserve our honor and integrity as a people. If we don't cling to ideals, what are we?

In actuality, however, this isn't a clash between immorality and morality, but rather a clash between the value of individual liberty and the value of collectivism. Even when collectivism fails on utilitarian grounds, collectivists press on. The thought of someone somewhere making a decision for himself or herself makes collectivists recoil in horror.