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.
Do you support a 100% tax rate since it's not your money anyway?
Where did I say that? This thread had nothing to do with taxation. It's subject was whether our country (through our government) should provide disaster relief. I'm not an expert on the constitution, but I doubt that it prohibits that. As far as taxation goes we probably agree more than disagree. More of our taxes are wasted in this country in an average month than we are going to spend on this. We do need to address the waste we have on a daily basis.
Libertarians joined the Republicans in the last Presidential election. They put Bush over the top. They're the last element in the Republican Party supporting lowered taxes and smaller government. Get with the program.
What is that? The source?
Americans gave 241 billion to charity in 2003 (Source: http://www.aafrc.org/).
American in 2004 taxpayers gave $1.1 trillion in charity to various social welfare programs (Source: The U.S. Budget).
Excluded from the $1.1 trillion figure is giving of aid to foreign governments.
Ergo, we should waste even more!
No - our government should most certainly NOT be giving our money away.
Your reply says it all
Actually your statement that you would never give to charity says it all.
That number was in the cbsnews link I posted earlier.
In case you did not know, "through our government" is a misnomer. It is through taxpayer money as forced charitable giving.
Actaully, it is linked from the Neal Boortz site...he will get in trouble.
That is not the source, that is who reported it.
The sources I gave you were REAL sources. I am a stickler when it comes to facts. I would like to know where the true source of that is. It is possible it is from the U.S. budget as foreign aid total; if so, I can look at that since I do that often.
If you would, why not research what they are saying and point me to the true source, otherwise I can't accept that.
On the other hand, you can bank on it that my source is accurate: America spends taxpayer money money on domestic welfare to the tune of $1.1 trillion dollars in FY 2004.
Let Dr. Thomas Sowell tell you why people do just that! Your-tax-dollars-at-work warning:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040908.shtml
That's right. And they have no right to do it. What makes you think they'll do any better job at helping those poor people than anything else the government wastes it on? Let people give to relief organizations if they wish, but keep our tax dollars at home!
Didn't disagree with you. Just asked where your information came from.
So you're giving the government's money back to them when you pay taxes, do you think? What you have in your wallet is what Uncle Sam is letting you keep, you're saying?
Yikes!
According to the U.S. budget, "International Affairs" total spending is $34.2 billion--I don't have the break down for aid, but most of this is aid in one format or another.
The State Department's budget for 2004 is $11.3 billion. Combined, that is $45.5 billion.
Windsong, Christ was not talking about governments doing for others. He was talking about individuals. And voluntary altruism, not extortion. There is a world of difference.
Scripture does not promise, nor does it hold up as a goal, a utopian society without illness, poverty, racism, need, or any of the countless other ills of civilization. And it certainly doesn’t suggest that a secular government should be used to eradicate society’s inequalities, or fill its needs. Where do our church leaders, and the followers of Christ, come up with the concept that secular government should attempt to accomplish what God Himself never promises? They surely aren’t finding it in scripture.
Non-Christians often point to Acts 2:42-45 (in which communal fellowship is described) in order to further the misconception that scripture promotes a kind of socialist welfare state. But the scene described there, and in many other scriptural passages, is one of divine inspiration and voluntary, natural brotherly love, not statist fiat.
When Christ commands us to care for the poor and the disadvantaged, He is not promoting the creation of a welfare state, forced taxpayer-funded charity, or expanded government power to forcibly redistribute wealth. In fact, He often repeats the Old Testament commandment against theft (Matthew 19:18), consistently putting His stamp of approval on private property and individual choice. 2 Corinthians 9:7 reads Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. God asks for a tithe, a voluntary contribution of ten percent of our earnings. The government requires half of our earnings at gunpoint – and then ‘magnanimously’ decides what to do with that extorted money.
Christ never suggested that we look to the government to solve our problems. He instead encouraged, even commanded, that we love one another. Faith without works is dead. And the works to which the Bible exhorts us involve voluntarily helping one another with our individual needs and spiritual hurts.
The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet I picked up at a political retreat several years ago. It is a simple, yet wonderful, example of the what is being discussed on this thread. I hope you will take the time to read it. I believe good people who have placed entirely too much faith in an unworthy government sometimes need to, in order to put charity in its proper perspective:
______________________________________
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the house favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crocket, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet.
‘Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead, or our sympathy for a part of the living, to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money.
Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. And we have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.’
There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes.
The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he had spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown, When the legislative session was over, he made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, ‘I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again.’ Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce.
Bunce replied, ‘You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided buy it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions.’
‘I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.’
‘The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People.
‘I could not answer him,’ said Crockett. ‘I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.’
After finishing the story, Crockett said, ‘Now, sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. Bit it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.
______________________________________
All of our hearts are breaking for the victims of the terrible disaster that occurred last week. We would have to be inhuman not to be deeply affected by the pictures and heart-rending accounts of the indescribable human suffering. In a combined effort, eight of the churches in my community are busy collecting material items and financial contributions to send to Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia and Thailand. And I know that thousands of other churches, and other religious, community and charitable organizations, are doing the same. But government cannot, and must not, be in the charity business. To do so amounts to (1) robbing charity of its voluntary nature, and (2) ascribing to government a compassion that it does not, and will never, comprehend. Government is not altruistic, but confiscatory and oppressive. Not only is charity alien to the definition of government, but (even more importantly) the Constitution also forbids the convergence of the two.
~ joanie
Nothing's stopping you from being able to do just that. There are lists of links posted all over of charitable organizations who will take your donations.
One of the most cogent and well-reasoned replies yet! Excellent!
I'll take the libertarian contingent over the Clinton-light "conservatives" or theo-con contingents every time. Not that I agree with the Libertarians on everything (I am a Republican for a reason, afterall), but they do have a spine - and don't regularly cave-in to that ol' "do-gooder" impulse or try to cloak their big-government meanderings with religiosity.
Source??
"When torn between your head and heart, choose your head..."
Excellent statement. In politics, conservatives always make decisions based upon what the head tells them. Too many strains of so-called conservatism want to introduce emotion into the equation - just like the left has for eons. Big government social engineering where America's well-being is not directly at stake (as in the WOT) is big-government social engineering, be it from the left or the right. Our money should not be confiscated - and it certainly shouldn't be handed out overseas.
If you want to help, give to a private charity - and leave my (confiscated) money out of 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.