Review: Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo
“Why Aid Is Not Working And How There Is A Better Way For Africa.”
We know: Aid is bad. It creates corruption. It harms the economy. It makes nice happy Christians, and nice happy DSH’s1 feel good about themselves. But it is terribly harmful for Africans and their civilization.
Because I agree with everything she says, I’d like to say something meaningful and supportive, but everything I read in the book is old news. In the Austrian school we’ve been talking about this problem forever. Other than the fact that the author is a successful woman of African origin, this book is a easy read that is very hard to criticize for having uncomfortable motives.
Good book. Good cause. Smart woman.
But nothing new.
What I can say is this: there isn’t any difference between the problem of giving aid to Africa, the Spanish and Portugese import of gold from the new world, and easy credit for american citizens and their expansionist government. It’s all bad.
- Democratic Secular Humanists [↩]
About
Curt Doolittle
Seattle, WA, United States
"De Philosophia Aristocratia"
I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Austrian Libertarian tradition. As a methodological Propertarian, I support the Property and Freedom Society, The Mises Institute, and the Neo-Classical LIberalism Movement.Purpose
Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of Aristocratic philosophy and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment, combined with our ancient tribal instincts for group persistence and land-holding. It currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an articulated rational philosophy. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.
This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.
Libertarianism by contrast, is a rational philosophy of an articulate but permanent minority. It is based upon a solid, rational and critical methodology, even if it is flawed in its initial assumption: the principle of non-violence.
Unfortunately the Rothbardian Anarchist movement has appropriated the term "Libertarian", and left Classical Liberals and Conservatives alienated from the only system of thought with which they need to articulate their political sentiments in rational and empirical rather than moralistic and sentimental form.
By repairing the flaws in Libertarian philosophy we can use its methodology to provide a rhetorical solution for conservatives - a language which in turn may become an articulated philosophical body of argument and advocacy for the frustrated conservative majority.
Points To Ponder
Recent Posts
-
Defining Capitalism
56 days ago -
Inverting The Argument: Inequality Is The Product Of Diversity
56 days ago -
Why Are Artificial Breasts All The Rage In Columbia?
57 days ago -
From Freedom To Slavery: The Five Evolutionary Stages Of Fiat Money
57 days ago -
Doolittle's Chart's On Political Preferences
64 days ago -
My Friend Karl Smith's Progressive Framing
64 days ago -
An Anti-Masculine Bias In Pornography Actors?
64 days ago -
Labor and Education Numbers Illustrate What's Wrong With Progressives And Keynesianism
64 days ago -
Keynesian Absurd Optimism
66 days ago -
Why Do Left-Leaning Economists Ignore IQ Data?
71 days ago
-
Defining Capitalism



