United Nations and Unicef

Would Austrians/Libertarians support the existence of Unicef? The works and programs of Unicef? About Unicef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicef) The United Nations Children's Fund (or UNICEF) was created by the United Nations General Assembly on December 11, 1946 to provide emergency food and healthcare to children in countries that had been devastated by World War II. In 1953, UNICEF became a permanent part of the United Nations System and its name was shortened from the original United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund but it has continued to be known by the popular acronym based on this old name. Headquartered in New York City, UNICEF provides long-term humanitarian and developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries. More info on focus areas/programs (http://www.unicef.org/whatwedo/index.html). I conjecture that Austrians/Libertarians would not be in favor for a UN "governmental" organization running these programs, not to mention any US Federal Government subsidies, if any. Assuming that Unicef was independent of government control, and government funding, Austrians/Libertarians would have little to argue about. Thoughts?

 Well, if it were a private organization funded by private donations and there were no governmental involvement or interference then of course Libertarians/Austrians would support it.  It would, in that case, be a private charity.  Who doesn't support the idea of private charities? 

No!  Libertarians do not support organizations that use violence to steal money from people unwilling to pay.  This is true EVEN if the organization was founded by people with nice motives.This is especially true for super-governmental organizations like the UN that need not answer to anyone and violently challenge the poor and innocent who disagree with their self-serving rules drafter under the guise of consensus.

 

I understood the question to be whether Libertarians would support organizations that help the poor as long as government isn't involved (which means all funding would be voluntary, i.e. no stealing).  The answer's obvious.  That's why I asked if there is anyone who doesn't support private charities.