Posted on 12/30/2004 1:17:50 PM PST by bruinbirdman
Our money is not the government's to give.
As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.
The United States government, however, should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give.
Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first. Year after year, for decades, the government has forced American taxpayers to provide foreign aid to every type of natural or man-made disaster on the face of the earth: from the Marshall Plan to reconstruct a war-ravaged Europe to the $15 billion recently promised to fight AIDS in Africa to the countless amounts spent to help the victims of earthquakes, fires and floods--from South America to Asia. Even the enemies of the United States were given money extorted from American taxpayers: from the billions given away by Clinton to help the starving North Koreans to the billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians under Arafat's murderous regime.
The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?
The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism--the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it's worth--those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans--the wealthiest people on earth--are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it. It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. It is past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.
Next time a politician gives away money taken from you to show what a good, compassionate altruist he is, ask yourself: By what right?
David Holcberg is a research associate at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif.
Gosh those numbers seem rather dated. Indonesia is 80000 plus officially. Could be 400000 in Indonesia alone.
Problem is that when American's incur damage to property they have to apply to get "low interest rate" loans from FEMA that take months to qualify and have to repay the "tax dollars already paid into the system. US Governments forgives loans, to other countries but we can't help our own. As taxpayer I don't mind helping tsunami victims but.... expect our tax dollars to help us. I don't see US fixing our slum areas or providing aid to our own UNLESS they are ILLEGAL.
I think you are the whacko.
The Pentagon just anoounced they have to drastically reduce F-22 production because America does not have the money to pay for it, but you think we can send money to corrupt foreign nations. Very little of this money will get to any of those people.
Anybody who places giving money to foreigners ahead of defending our nation is a whacko.
"the Government can take as much money as it wants at the point of a gun, then give it away, and that's somehow 'Christian'?"
The government cannot take 'as much money as it wants'. It can take as much money as the majority is willing to put up with. If it takes too much, or looks like it will take too much it don't get to govern.... (ask John Kerry!).
There are circumstances in which governments can act far more effectivley than charitble bodies - a combination of military capability, logistical experitise, resource stockpiles, liquidity of cash, ability to release medicines etc.
I'm not sure whether it should be charactorised as the Christian thing to do (church and state blah, blah, blah) but it should be seen as the 'right' thing to do.
God Bless America for the support it is giving to those who have none of the advantages of that great nation.
Get rid of you would be better.
There are very legitimate reasons why giving this aid is wrong, not the least of which is the Pentagoon said America does not have enough cash to pay for the F-22. All you people who feel that foreigners are more important than Americans need to "be gotten rid of".
Why do you want the thread pulled, RW? You afraid of a little intramural battle between the constitutional conservatives, the economic conservatives (often the same) the Clinton-light-do-gooders, and the theo-cons?
You really want to have a thread pulled just because you, YOU, disagree with the contents of the initial post? Wow. Where can I buy an ego like that?
That bears repeating. Good job.
We're in rare agreement. I have no use for this brand of cold-hearted self-centeredness either.
If you don't like the way the government allocates funds to international relief - change the representation. Funds are allocated to the president's discretion in situations like this. Additional funds will be distributed with congressional approval.
What did the libertarians win in 2004? Squat. If they aren't irrelevant now, this mentality will cause them to be.
Just my humble opinion.
How many threads can we find that don't even have the first thing to do with politics? How many about the Peterson case? Did you get in touch with the admin on those threads?
Exactly. The man is representing me beautifully. My only regret is that I only had one vote to cast for the man.
FR has much higher standards than you do, rwfromarkansa. I find nothing more appalling than having members pinging the Admin Moderator to pull threads that express reasonable and sound opinion that simply differs from some Joe Schmo.
Me, Ayn Rand and many others have as much compassion as you do for these poor people and their suffering and this disaster. However, it is the method of aid that we disagree with.
President Bush could have gone on TV to appeal to Americans to send money for relief efforts and Americans would have given more than any government.
It is wrong to give money to foreign nations, especially when we do not have enough cash to even fund the F-22.
As I recall, this was actually the standard response of the US Government for many years. No government "relief" funds, even for natural disasters in the US.
Back then, a President said something along the lines of, "Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the right to spend the money in this way" (I can't remember the President).
Mark
I'm trying! I'm trying!
I don't believe you need to be a Libertarian, I'm not, to find the reasoning in this article has merit. I'm not saying I begrudge loosening funds for this project. I say that knowing that this argument is correct, but I'm willing to forego correctness of this argument for a perceived greater good.
Go ahead and run a campaign that says disaster relief should not have come from taxpayers and it was wrong of the government to help the citizens of these torn countries.
You will get even less of the vote than what the libertarians got in the last election. Again - squat.
Go ahead and run on that platform - do it for the sake of the argument. I will point and laugh.
The problem with the practical aspects of this disaster is that time is of the essence. Charitable fundraising will be helpful but we have the ability to airlift supplies, water purification equipment and other assistance RIGHT NOW. It would seem inhuman not to help when Cholera is a threat to kill hundreds of thousands more while charitable funds are being raised.
This is an age-old argument about the function of government and the socialists have pretty much won the argument throughout the world. America has been a giveaway society since Franklin Roosevelt said the government has the responsibility to help the poor when they are suffering.
I think this type of isolationism is coming mainly from the Libertarian point of view. It does them no good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.