U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims

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.

In case you did not know, "through our government" is a misnomer. It is through taxpayer money as forced charitable giving.

Ok. use whatever excuse you need to rationalize that you are a tightwad who doesn't give to charity. It's not forced though. You don't have to pay income tax. If you work for someone else you're paying willingly (you don't need to work for someone else). If you've got your own operation going, go to all cash and don't pay anything. You can opt out, I know people who have.

Technical note:

When you quote a fellow member, you need to put it in italics. That is standard procedure not only here but thoughout the Internet message forum family.

It is very confusing and inappropriate to quote somebody and not to have the quote in italics. For the benefit of other members trying to read the thread, please italicize other members' quotes.

"It wasn't directed at anyone in particular. But I see you know who you are."

Initially, I thought your "National Alliance" reference was aimed at those who believe it's okay to confiscate money and then give it a cause with those from whom the money was confiscated may disgree. THAT is Nazi-esque. W

Initially, I thought your "National Alliance" reference was aimed at those who believe it's okay to confiscate money and then give it a cause with those from whom the money was confiscated may disgree. THAT is Nazi-esque. W

Don't misunderstand. I agree completely with the confiscation of earnings part of the arguement. I'm a fiscal and social conservative. My problem is with the premise that our government shouldn't help in a disaster. I have to choose my words carefully here. Some of the posts just seemed to be leaning towards the attitude you will encounter on that site(NA). I didn't single anyone out and name call.
While we're on the subject though, tell me what great relief efforts the Nazis ever participated in?

I am afraid you are wrong

Perhaps you should pay closer attention; I clearly stated it is a DISCRETIONARY FUND; and he CAN do with it as he sees fit, period.

And if you don't think he can do what he wants to with federal funds, perhaps you should get in touch with the White House--as Bush completely spent every dime in our international relief agency's funds YESTERDAY.

I think it was PJ O'Rourke (spelling?) who said, "It won't do you any good to stand before God on Judgment Day and say, But I gave other people's money to the poor!"

We should give generously. The government should provide support such as airlift, naval vessels etc - relief that can ONLY come from a government agency. All the rest should be private. Giving government collected taxes is just politicians trying to show how generous they are by giving other peoples money to the poor and afflicted.

A lot of good can be accomplished if things get to the troubled spots NOW, rather than waiting for fundraising to be accomplished.>>

I will put aside for a moment the issue of whether one agrees on the MORALITY of the government taking money by taxation and disbursing it in a manner it has no legal (read "Constitutional") right to do.

The premise of your statement that the US Gov't is more efficient and speedy than the public in raising and disbursing funds than private organizations has to win some sort of idiot prize. I am sure you are intelligent, and just responding out of emotion and genuine sympathy for the plight of those poor people, but that is what emotion and handwringing does in times of extremity. It makes people who are otherwise prudent and wise in charitable giving to endorse sheer stupidity in fear of being thought heartless.

If you really believe your premise, I suggest you make a donation to the US Treasury with a notation on the check that it is for "Sumatra Relief" and ask them to track how much of the money gets there, and how quickly. (hint: World Vision will do precisely that for you).
Private charities such as Samaritan's Purse, World Vision, CARE, The Salvation Army, Red Cross/Red Crescent, Oxfam, and even my own private charitable trust here in Durham NC are FAR more efficient than any government in getting funds disbursed to who needs them.

>Show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says that.
>>You are a fool is you don't believe that the president of the United States doesn't have money to spend at his discretion.
____________________________________
Remind me again WHERE in the constitution grants the president this "discretion" and I will happily call him a "fool" with you.

Till then, you are just a little child engaged in name calling because you have run out of arguments.

We should give all the help we can and we will but we should not do it through any other organization but through our own government and EVERYTHING we send should have at the very least an American flag on it or say MADE IN AMERICA

Not the UN or any other organizartion period

But our own for what we give !

But government cannot, and must not, be in the charity business.

Exactly. We the People did not authorize our government to be in the charity business, taking money by force from hapless taxpayers and giving it away to people around the world. That's not moral, either.

Hint: Do the words "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need" ring a bell with anyone?

Furthermore, any money that our government gives away in this manner must be taken out of other programs.

Right now, the administration is waking up with a serious hangover after a four-year spending binge. The first thing they are looking at cutting is the military budget. How typical, and how clintonian. The immoral and unconstititional spending is consuming the moral and legal spending.

So if people want to help in this disaster, nothing is stopping them from writing a generous check to any of a number of agencies. Nothing is stopping them from getting on a ship or an airplane and going over there with a hammer and nails and shovel.

But let's not weaken America and destroy our Constititional form of government in order to make some people feel less guilty about themselves.

Brady, unfortunately that link goes to commentary written after the fact. 20/20 hindsight or saying "they should have known" doesn't make it so.

Prior to the catastrophic tsunami, the Indian Ocean was not considered at high risk for an earthquake generated tsunami.

Prior to the catastrophic tsunami, the Indian Ocean was not considered at high risk for an earthquake generated tsunami.

I certainly agree that the risk was low. Still, low risk is not no risk.

I don't think it was too much to expect that the Indian Ocean nations would have augmented their weather tracking and early warning systems for monsoons and other tropical storms that hit their coasts with a similar warning system for a seismic event.

Perhaps it would not have changed the result even if they had. But it frosts me that we in the United States plan for it and other nations, for whatever reason, are not expected to.

Two of our States, Alaska and Hawaii had terrible catastrophic tsunamis in one century. The USA West Coast is part of the "Ring of Fire" zone.

Oregon and Washington are at high risk for a catastrophic local tsunami at some point in the hopefully distant future.

The USA has to have the tide gauges on buoys for tsunami detection along our coast.

Very well said Joanie...and spot on.

It is through the exercise of our free will in a charitable manner that we are capable of doing good, of really helping others and in so doing setting an example for them to do likewise...and inspriring them to crave and long for, sacrifice for...fight for...the freedom to do the same.

Otherwise, we pervert the very freedom and liberty we seek to spread by using compulsive means to try and "do good". The two do not, and cannot mix. This is why John Adams made the statement he did, which follows and is one of my favorties as to explaining the nature of the relationship between the citizens of this nation and the government that the founders established...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798

I know and I agree. And it's no state secret where the continental plates and fault lines of the world are, either. India, Indonesia and Thailand straddle fault lines, too. Storms wrack their coasts, just like in the US.

If we have tide gauges on buoys for tsunami detection along our coast, they should get some, too. They can plan NOW for the next event, because they know it really happens. (And based on the science and the events of 1941, they always _knew_ it could happen again.)

"There is nothing in the Constitution which authorizes such 'giving'."

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

While there may be no specific mention of such "giving" as you say, there are very specific instructions on how to constitutionally appropriate public monies for unspecified reasons.

I can guarantee you, that at the bottom of the idea of foreign aid, the proper constitutional steps were taken.

I never, never, never stated that the US governemnt is more efficient. However, I have implied that it can mobilize with certain essential pieces of equipment better than any private firms.
Do you know of any private firms that have several large scale water purification systems that are operating, on a ship and ready to go?? >>

Of course not, nor does the US Government. You reply as if we had them in stockpile just because the US Government is big and bloated. I can tell you that OXFAM and WORLD VISION have small scale water purification systems, engineers, and specs drawn up that can be reproduced on a large scale and distributed MUCH faster than anything the fed has.

Your point about the military is well founded. If we have PRIVATE CITIZENS doing PRIVATE CHARITY who need protection against the Tamil Tigers, then it is certainly appropriate to request permission from the sovereign government of Sri Lanka that our military be allowed to provide the protection that theirs either cannot or will not. Military protection for our citizens and the protection of Americans is LEGAL according to that quaint old fashioned document that we call the "Constitution."

Your statement that private firms are less able to mobilize as quickly as the US Military is so absurd that I hardly know whether to refute or just stand back and laugh at it. Big ain't better, and when it comes to government, big means ponderous, stupid, wasteful, inefficient, and inept. Good motives are never a substitute for bad decisions.

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.