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.
Exactly. Did Christ ask Emperor Tiberius to feed the multitude? Or did he take care of the loaves and fishes himself?
Is Christian Charity merely pleading to government? I think not. Let government do what is appropriate for government; and let the people take care of charity as their conscience may dictate.
I am afraid you are wrong, the president has access to a fund he can use, which he did, it amounted to 35M. Any other money he wants for aid he has to get congress to vote on it, just as he does if he is sending money to Florida for instance. I think people here are missing the real point of this guys post and that is the Government is taxing us to much and in general wasting it. I agree with that and would love a different type of tax, other than an income tax that would leave me with more money in my pocket. However, since the government has already taxed us at a high rate, then a lot of citizens cannot afford to give and rely on the government to give the money they have stolen from us through taxes( I agree with this point to) then we will let them give it in aid to these poor people. However you, not you howlin, but anyone, feel about whether the goverments of these islands and countrys were warned ahead of time it doesn't mean the people got the word, obviously they didn't. Help is needed and we will give it. Hopefully in the future we can reduce our taxes down to a level they should be, but for now we have what we have and must go with it.
Or, both can help, which is even better.
er, Pakistan?
>> "When you failed to do it for the least of these here brethren of mine..you failed to do it for me"
Jesus encouraged individual charity. But at no time did Jesus encourage the use of government surrogates to force charity from its citizens.
But you see, it is SO much easier to demand the gov't take care of every problem. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is like the difference bewtween the S.S. and the Wehrmacht--they're both fighting for the State above all,but they differ in the tactic they will use.
Hey,some of you just got p.o.'d, but show me where the Republicans have really turned back the tide of big gov't , how the Republicans AS A PARTY vigorously fight fraud,abortion,have shrunken gov't programs, and call for a return to traditional strict constitutional laws .
And it wasn't FDR, but A. Lincoln who broke the chains that shackled the federal gov't. It took a few more decades for the lovers of State power to enact Prohibition and create a huge criminal network.
I, and others, who would like a return to limited gov't are not conservatives,for they only desire no more changes;we are reactionaries.
It so happens that socialism is just too attractive to most people with its claims of free lunches.
No - once you let Government treat the peoples' money as if it were their own, no matter what the merit of the particular issue, you open the gate to abuses.
It's like arguing that the right to trial by jury should be eliminated for one particular criminal. Soon, more exceptions proliferate until, eventually, there is no more trial by jury.
Our government has no business giving away public money. If you choose to give away your money...then, by all means, have at it!
Probably are. I was spent the Christmas holidays (in the Great Red State of Ohio) with family. Went cold turkey from FoxNews and FR. Just getting over the withdrawal symptoms.
And He had lunch with Zaccheus.
Here you make the mistake of assuming that the will of the majority is the will of the group as a whole,First, if I made that mistake, so did the author. He spoke of the American taxpayer as one group, as a whole. Why didn’t you critique him on it? Clearly, he is wrong for the vast bulk of the individuals in that group.
and that the fact that the majority supports high taxes means those taxes are fair for everyone.I didn’t say anything about fairness, so I don't see how you claim I make the mistake of assuming this.
If the vast majority of the population supported a totally socialist government, you would still consider it theft when they came to take your property away.Depends on how they take it away.
The fact that a certain action is supported by the majority doesn't make it morally acceptable.Which is an entirely different argument than the one the author makes. Convince the Randians to drop the hyperbole and simply ask people to consider if its moral to use tax money for charity. Until they do that, articles like this one are no more than red meat for people who are already true believers. Those of us who think differently will continue to ignore your ideas.
patent
Think Iraq, about 20 years ago. Think Iran before that.
Bad policies continue to undermine our national interests abroad.
The jury is still out on Pakistan.
Unfortunatley OBL is a hero to those AWs. I hate to see any of our tax dollars being given to countries who hate America. NSNR
>>>>So...you voted for a pay raise for congress... I don't remember doing that.
You don't realize that your congress critters are going to raise their pay from time to time? Really? I know they will, I voted for one of them anyway. I didn't even try to get him to promise not to. Maybe you didn't vote for one, or maybe you did get a promise from the one you voted for. Otherwise, you pretty much should have known what you were getting. This isn't exactly unexpected.
patent
I don't think so... care to point out where it does?
Well said!!
Yes, and the lord said he will help those who help themselves. I don't think God wanted to see panhandlers on every corner, but getting up off their lazy butts and finding a (J)(O)(B). The sick, disabled and some others do deserve some financial help. Jesus would agree with that concept.
The US government is directly responsible for the resurgence of Malaria in the world because the USG banned the production and trafficking of DDT in this country and pressured other nations to do likewise.
Ah...so theft is OK, as long as you just steal a little?
"The sick, disabled and some others do deserve some financial help. Jesus would agree with that concept."
And I'm sure Jesus would not have said that the government is responsible for it.
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.