3 ms·

I'm not sure of that. I worry that unless we take over the national government, bureaucrats will prevent the aid from reaching every resident for ideological re

I'm not sure of that. I worry that unless we take over the national government, bureaucrats will prevent the aid from reaching every resident for ideological reasons (or cultural reasons, e.g., about the proper role of women) or simply because a bureaucrat wants to steal -- and of course taking over a government is difficult and expensive. Also, you leave basic security out of your list: not having roving gangs for example always stealing your stuff and sexually harassing your daughter. That's more important that having lighting after dark.

InitialLastName 3y ago
Your concern isn't a resource issue, though. The resources exist, but so do the people willing to siphon resources to their benefit over the basic needs of others.
- hollerith 3y ago
  >Your concern isn't a resource issue I don't like that way of framing it. I prefer to say that the US would need to spend additional resources (which seem prohibitive to me) to ensure that the nominal resources reach the intended recipients.
- lucianbr 3y ago
  You're right in a sense. But I wonder, what does it mean to say "we have enough resources to provide for all humans" when human nature itself makes it impossible to provide for all humans with the resources we have now. Possibly with any amount of resources. It's not a resource issue, but it's not an external factor either.