This is a lie, and if you think NK leadership is going to be spending crypto on food for their populace you're deluded.
If your neighbour beats his children and constantly threatens to shoot your house up, you are not morally obligated to spend money at their restaurant.
They spend money on military not to supress the local population, they do it to protect themselves against you.
You are morally responsible for your choices including preventing kids from eating.
It seems based on some premise that North Korea is only bad because other nations are "mean" to it.
Many authoritarian regimes have historically used food availability as a weapon against their own populations. North Korea clearly is one such regime.
There is no private enterprise in North Korea-- I don't know what you think lifting of non-food covering sanctions would do other than further strengthening a rogue state that has no intentions of having anything other than a perpetual slave caste.
Bart : No.
Fat Tony : Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart : Uh uh.
Fat Tony : And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart : I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony : Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart : Hell, no.
Prisons are not there to punish. Do you believe they are?
It is no one's responsibility to feed anyone. People don't have a right to exist. People do whatever they can to survive around the world.
The countries that have decided to force these kids to die to further their geopolitcal goals are responsible for those decisions. Maybe they die for a better future for all or maybe they die because their lives don't matter to the countries preventing food from reaching them.
Throughout history many countries
I wish (kidding), but no, it jails citizens who travel to foreign countries to explain how to evade sanctions to people who would benefit from that information.
> It is no one's responsibility to feed anyone. People don't have a right to exist. People do whatever they can to survive around the world.
That's not what I said. I said that this obligation extends domestically. It may be good, nice, and moral - heck I support it - to save anyone you can on earth. It may even be a moral imperative but your obligation first and foremost is to your own at home.
> The countries that have decided to force these kids to die to further their geopolitcal goals are responsible for those decisions.
All I'm saying is if you rely on the relationships with others to survive probably don't poke them in the eye?
If you're dangling from a bridge, suspended by a rope, and some burly guy catches you. You realize you don't like his face. So you throw sand at him. He lets go of the rope, and you fall. Who's at fault? You could say it was the guy who let go of the rope. But for the love of all that is good and holy, why are you throwing sand at the only person keeping you alive?
Nobody owes you trade. Whether that's right, wrong, good, bad or anything else, it's fact. States would be well served to keep that in mind. It doesn't usually come up until the "and find out" part of "screw around and find out" happens.