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.
If you don't see that the two are connected, then do you support disaster relief and other hand outs to any one who asks?
from source: http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Dec/29-174477.html:
"Lieutenant General James T. Conway, Joint Chiefs of Staff director of operations, was at the same briefing, describing the array of military resources that the Pacific Command is sending into the region. Five ships each capable or producing 90,000 gallons (over 340 kiloliters) of fresh water a day are heading to the Bay of Bengal. Two more U.S. ships with the same capability are already in the Indian Ocean and steaming toward the affected region, Conway said."
Or shall we wait for OXFAM to "scale up their drawings"?
So where exactly is this US500 Million going?
Our government prints currency at will, and engages in deficit spending. Foreign aid is little more than inflation control.
My key argument is that the US military is the only group that can get a lot of water there and get it there NOW. Time is extremely important here. Yes, private firms will be quite important, and their help is needed as soon as they are capable. Questions about "efficiency" and "centralization" are secondary to timing.
These ships aren't going to save everyone, but they will supply water for a million people, and they can be located where the water is needed the most - the heavily populated areas where cholera outbreaks are most likely to start. But most importantly, it can be done quickly.
The government is not doing it "better" or "more efficiently", but they can get a lot of water there quicker. Quicker is better in this case. Efficiency can be worked on next week.
You, too?
Till then, you are just a little child engaged in name calling because you have run out of arguments.
I stated a fact; there are plenty of things the government does that aren't written into the Constitution.
Highways, for example; and I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution about the internet, yet the goverment was a major mover and shaker in that.
Since you're such a purist, what are you doing using something that isn't named in the Constitution?
Any money that he has to spend was given to him through specific legislation appropriating those funds for specific purposes. The legislation had to pass Congress. Sure, maybe Congress appropriated funds for a "discretionary" account to be used in aiding foreign victims of natural disasters. Congress has only certain powers authorized to it and must operate within the scope provided by the Constitution. Show me the portion of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to appropriate funds to give to the President for such "discretionary" uses. Neither the Congress nor the President can do whatever they want. They are limited by the Constitution. Just because Congress appropriates funds and gives them to the President doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants with those funds.
Maybe this massive tragedy isn't the best situation upon which to make this point. There are a heck of a lot of other things that the President and the Congress does which are not authorized by the Constitution. However, the truth remains that most Federal expenditures to aid the victims of this tragedy are not within the bounds of the Constitution.
The fool is not the one who points out that the Constitution does not authorize a thing. The fool is the one who insists that it does but fails to back up their argument by providing the portion of the Constitution which proves it.
I never said anyone is stopping me from giving money directly to tsunami aid, and I have done so. What I resent is the government's giving my money away for me; I can do that very well on my own, thank you very much. (The snide tone is directed at the government, not at you, fellow freeper.
If he wants to spend more through an agency, he has to ask Congress; but not in a case like this.
The fool is the one who insists that it does but fails to back up their argument by providing the portion of the Constitution which proves it.
Kindly post the reply where I said anything close to that. I can wait.
I can guarantee you that they were not.
Pardon me for ever having the impression that you were intelligent. This has got to be one of the most stupid points ever made on Free Republic.
You've said that much. Show me the part of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to appropriate money for such a "discretionary" or "contingency" fund from which the President can spend any way he wants to.
>The fool is the one who insists that it does but fails to back up
> their argument by providing the portion of the Constitution which proves it.
Kindly post the reply where I said anything close to that. I can wait.
Um, you're really batting a thousand today. Look, I asked you for the portion of the Constitution authorizing expenditures on disaster relief for foreign nations. In response, you called me a fool for not believing that the President has a "discretionary" fund to spend any old way he feels like. You NEVER provided the portion of the Constitution authorizing such a thing. I simply pointed out that the fool is the one who can't back up their statement saying the Constitution authorizes a thing without providing the portion wherein the authorization is made.
You are the one asking for the portion of the Constitution that authorizes it; I pointed out to you that there are plenty of things that we have and do that the Constitution doesn't name specifically.
Evidently you'd rather have the issue than face reality.
So, you're admitting that the Constitution does not authorize these foreign disaster aid expenditures?
I'm admitting you're beating a dead horse.
Are you actually contending that the government shouldn't pay for anything that isn't mentioned in the Constitution?
Wow, thanks for posting that--I'd never read that before. It really puts a whole new spin on things, doesn't it?
I backed my statement with the Constitution.
Now, back yours.
Are you actually contending that the government should!? Where then do you draw the line? There are specific scopes within which the government must operate. You lamely mentioned the Internet. The Internet was developed as a defense against having our communications wiped out in a nuclear attack. The redundant connections allowed communications to continue even if several cities were annihilated. It was developed within the realm of defense. All I asked of you was to at least attempt to show some sort of Constitutional authorization for foreign disaster aid. Instead I get called a fool and told that the government routinely operates outside of Constitutional limitations and that I should just accept that reality and put a little ice on it. What you fail to realize that anything the government does outside of the powers and authority delegated to it by the people is usurpation and tyranny. I guess a little tyranny is perfectly OK with you. Some have less tolerance for such things no matter what emotion-driven wrapper that you put around 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.