Posted on 03/10/2019 3:53:20 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
To the casual moralist you don’t slap sanctions on a country on its knees minding its own business. Never mind the country has a government of looters who campaign on a ticket of lies about Israel and fete Hamas terror leaders and a plane highjacker on home soil.
South Africa is not neighbouring Zimbabwe, on which President Trump already slapped sanctions, although the Cato Institute warned him that South Africa is on the Zimbabwean road to hell. (Hyperlink needed). For now the country remains afloat. The problem (call it the exemplar effect) is somewhat different..
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
I read the whole article, and the democrats won’t be having any of that. That’s rayciss. Oh, and telling Africa that the world doesn’t owe it a living? That’s REALLY rayciss.
Isn’t this something the UN should take care of...maybe with a stern letter of resolution?/s
What more can they do? They condemn Caucasians daily already.
I remember in college a leftist bitch said to me that we need to take down the white South African government. I said they’d be replaced by a far worse government and the blacks there would suffer much more (blacks in South Africa were actually doing quite well under Apartheid, but the media kept that fact locked down). She said she didn’t care...all that mattered to her was that the white government had to go. Bitch.
To be cruel is often to be kind. Or, being kind to the guilty is to be cruel to the innocent.
Millions of refugees in the making are innocents deserving not a cruel future but a kind one.
---
Very similar statement to Frederic Bastiat's:
By Frederic Bastiat (1849)
In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause--it is seen. The others unfold in succession--they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference--the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.
In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. If often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man, absorbed in the effect which is seen, has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation.
This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others. It has to learn this lesson from two very different masters--experience and foresight. Experience teaches effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action, by causing us to feel them; and we cannot fail to finish by knowing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Foresight. For this purpose I shall examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena, by placing in opposition to each other those which are seen, and those which are not seen.
bkmk
Interesting rply. Thank you.
Bastiat was one of the most intelligent economist-minded people out there.
Thanks Eleutheria5.
The Dems aren’t going to condemn any country’s looters. Professional courtesy.
Yes, I agree. He was. More incredible considering when he lived.
For your information, here is the source of that excerpt in various formats. (free download) and no adds or scripts to bother with.
http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/15962
This essay was written in 1849, and not published until after Bastiat’s death. I think originally published in 1850.
He is famous for his work: “The Law”.
Also available at the source of the link: http://www.gutenberg.org (search for title or author)
How dare we call social justice ‘looting,’ we racists, we.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.