Skip to comments.U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims
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.
"When you failed to do it for the least of these here brethren of mine..you failed to do it for me"
Word from the libertarians, eh? Interesting read. I definitely agree that we need to be taxed less so we can give more on our own accord.
Unfortunately I feel that the eurotrash will never understand this concept, especially in light of what Yawn Egghead said the other day....
Great article. The government has no right to give away what it has already stolen.
My wife's mother was wanting to donate $500 till we showed her that the government was committed to at least $35 million. She said fine and will now take her $500 to Vietnam and hand out rice and clothing as she does each year.
Check this out,
I will respectfully disagree with this. Sometimes goverments can do things that are much harder for individual groups -- mostly things on a grand scale.
and regardless of whatever pussbrain at the UN has to say about US being stingy -- screw 'em. Personally, I'd be happy to beat every two-faced UN turd with a baseball bat for their arrogance, but the tsunami victims should not suffer for UN stupidity
This is an interesting topic, and I'm sure I will get flamed for pointing out that over 1 million people die each year in underdeveloped countries, of malaria. Malaria has been eradicated in the US and is easily prevented here. This topic was discussed yesterday on conservative talk radio and I think the point was well made....
It seems we are one step ahead of the UN on this issue. They are planning on having a meeting to discuss how they can send aid and how the US keeps undermining them by doing things better and faster.
I hope the government doubles, triples, quadruples the aid just to p/o those tightwads (and help the victims).
You are confusing two concepts. According to Christ, we are all required to be charitable. That, however has nothing to do with the government unjustly taking a disproportionate amount of our wages, such that it's difficult to care for our families, so it can in turn give that money away.
It's not a phase, you ignorant newbie. It's Reality.
So wanting limited, smaller less expensive government is immature and selfish?
So many of my tax dollars are going there and to so many other similar causes I figure they got it coverd. I spend what they leave me on more pressing local issues.
....and you will note that, no matter how much of our money the government gives away, it's NEVER enough, anyway. We taxpaying Americans, whose wealth is gathered and squandered on boondoggle after boondoggle, are just too "greedy" and "stingy." The world takes our money, offers a tip of the hat, and then spits in our faces.</p>
It's an important movement.
Joining FR to insult is does not go over well with the kitties. Hold on to your hat!
Having given my money to victims of whatever calamity, is that considered a good
dead deed of mine or of the politicians?
You can't give everything to everybody.
Jesus Christ would not aprove of giving money to people to build houses again in an area that is.... lets face it...prone to this activity.
Nothing in the Bible does it say "Blessed are the Stupid.
The government taking money from you and I and giving it away is not charity.
It is forced slavery of You and I.
If I want to give money to help these people...and I will......I want to do it...not have the government tell me that I must do it.
JC hated publicans...tax collectors. And the tax collectors are running this country into the ground with this supposed idea of charity...which has stolen trillions from hard working Americans in the name of.....WE MUST DO IT.....IT IS ONLY RIGHT.
See the great society.....and welfare.....and Social security...and so on and so forth.
Ahhh, I replied without even checking the sign-up date. I thought it seemed very un-conservative of a comment.
And one more reason why the Libertarian Party cannot even get .5% of the vote. Feh!
I promise that if a poll were taken, the vast majority of taxpayers would agree to have some of their tax dollars go to help the tsunami victims.
If it's not your money, it's not charity.
I thought it was their anti-Iraq War ideas and the completely open border they want. I didn't think it was the "limiting government" ideas.
Fair enough. But does this mean the government is taking my money and giving it away in the name of Jesus? I didn't think so!
Libertarians wouldn't stand in the way of individual donations or an organized private effort.
The Constitution authorizes the President to give money to charities on our behalf. Doesn't it?
How do you know? Did He tell you?
JC hated publicans...tax collectors.
Actually, He didn't. He chose one as an apostle (Matthew), and used a parable to compare a humble publican to an arrogant Pharisee.
Jesus would wholeheartedly approve of anything we as individuals and as a country do to help these suffering people.
So, according to you 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'?
And if I object to this obscene practice, I'm not a 'good Christian'?
You might want to go back and reread your Bible there, Sparky.
I believe there's a pretty big proscription against stealing.
Yes he would. Too bad others can't realize that.
Are you sure they want the government to give the aid, or do they want aid to be given? If the latter, wouldn't they give freely of themselves, especially if they knew the government wouldn't give?
What do you think the American public's response would be, if Bush said "There is no Constitutional authority for us to send a single dime of taxpayer money overseas, but considering the enormity of the tragedy, aid is urgently needed, and I personally beg each of you who is able to give whatever you can afford to give, and to please do so as soon as possible." Do you think Americans (generally, not NYT reporters) would open their hearts and their wallets generously, or do you think they would call for his impeachement? Seriously.
You might want to read this: http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1329
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.5
Cleveland went on to point out that the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune, and indeed that individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. Further, he suggested that if members of Congress really wanted to send seed to the suffering Texans, the congressmen might personally carry out this charitable transfer by using the seed routinely provided to all members for distribution to their constituents (at an expense of $100,000 in that fiscal year).
Exactly the feeling I get sometimes listening to Boortz.
While I understand conceptually the case this article makes, I guess I'm just not be that conservative then.
The clear disconect between heart and mind isn't something I'll go along with.
If that's an indication of their politics, then maybe a little dysentary isn't so bad?
Okay, (/sarcasm)... but I don't want that guy getting a dime!
The ideas espoused in the article have nothing to do with conservatism.
Great point but it's going to be lost on the dogmatic Randians.
>>Jesus would wholeheartedly approve of anything we as individuals and as a country do to help these suffering people.<<
You are very wise.
That's what I thought...
Bingo. It really frosts my niblets; this tadue about the "US" contributing to the relief of other citizens of other nations.
That is what "private" charaties are and should be all about. Giving our "tax" dollars when we have un-solved issues and national debt here at home absolutely makes no sense. More so, like I said, it really bothers me. And it has nothing to do with the "Christian" concept of giving as the second poster tries to assert.
The United States has committed $35 million plus 12 ships to this effort (with an operating cost of perhaps $10 million for this operation). This works out to about a nickel a citizen.
A lot of good can be accomplished if things get to the troubled spots NOW, rather than waiting for fundraising to be accomplished. For example, if clean water sources can be established before Cholera becomes rampant, then a lot of lives will be saved.
President Bush has urged Americans to make private donations. I expect the private donations to absolutely dwarf the initial government donation.
The relatively small initial contribution of money from the government means that the money that I personnally donated will go to food and shelter rather than battling an outbreak of diseases.
IOW, Bush is making efficient use of my charitable contribution.