Hacker News Reader

That is such a paternalistic thought. Their lives are their own, they are not ours to protect or to give up on. If we want to help those societies, the best thing we can do is to help their economies, which indirectly is the best possible way to avoid more people dying unnecessarily in the future.

View on HN

It is NOT paternalistic. So if you come across someone on the road and he is bleeding and dying. Will you help that person? Or will you think that he is bleeding and dying because there is violence is this society. So we should stop violence first so that no one will get hurt and die. For this poor person you come across, just let him die till he runs out of blood. It's just not right.

What happened here is that person lost their job because we (the US) can way out-compete them with our superior technology and global military might. Then they tried to go steal some food because they didn't have any money, and lost the fight, and now they are dying from their wounds. You think the right thing to do at this point is help this person, and that if we do so, we should feel good about it. I think a bigger priority is not causing another 10 people tomorrow from having to go through the same problem.

If anything, your statement is more paternalistic, father knows best

Reply on news.ycombinator.com