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.
Mexico sure does.... $65 Mil for Calif eductation,$79Mil for emergency services,$600 Mil to lock up felons,$10BILLION paidby Ca. taxpayers. FREE Health Insurance,Free.. free... free... free money for all what the hey
The guy wearing the UBL shirt is doing nothing to assist with the disaster recovery. The men who are working aren't wearing UBL shirts.
But the argument isn't simply about this one event for me, or even all foriegn aid. I know foreign aid is a defense and foreign policy tool. I'm saying that the basic concept of enforced charity is wrong, and although many here support this aid, I would hope that we could all agree on that concept.
Happy to entertain you, Kofi Anan!
You've done absolutely nothing for your brethren if the money was first confiscated by force and then illegitimately given to your brethren. The operative scripture here comes from the Ten Commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
By all means, we should send boatloads of cash to those hit by this horrible disaster. But private donations are the only acceptable donations. Show me the portion of the U.S. Constitution which authorizes the President or the Congress to appropriate funds for such disaster relief. Call me cold and heartless but as the article says it is not the government's money to spend. It was confiscated, by force, from citizens first and it should only be spent on authorized things.
LOL. No one is better at inanities than the libertarian contingent on FR. And that's about all I have time for right now.
Your humble opinion is a Marxist opinion. These "funds' you talk about our taxpayers money. This is forced charitable giving.
I will never, ever give one penny to any charity. You know why? Because the U.S. government forces me to give to charity anyway.
I do not know when the U.S. government will next force me to give money to some foreign nation due to some foreign natural disaster, but it will happen. So, I just don't give to any charity since I can't tell how much of my money will be goiven away by the American government.
Americans gave $250 billion to charity last year. If the government did not force us to give to charity, Americans (like me) would probably start giving great amounts to charity. We would easily give $1 trillion every year if the U.S. did not force us to give to charity against our wishes.
We are not a democracy governed by the whims of a "vast majority of Americans". We are a Republic based upon laws and the operative law here is the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere within the Constitution is this activity authorized. If the "vast majority of Americans" want it authorized then they need to amend the Constitution first.
"If the American taxpayer wasn't willing to go along with this, the American taxpayer should exercise his right to vote the bums out. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers vote for the two major parties, despite KNOWING that the politicians in those two parties will send out the aid every time nature strikes. So, I don't see how the author can say that the government "forced" us to pay or "extorted" the money from us. We voted for it. Frankly, resort to hyperbole like that makes it hard to take any other part of the article - or the idea behind it - seriously. "
So...you voted for a pay raise for congress... I don't remember doing that.
As the other countries brag about what their governments give, I would like to see how much individual contributions are in each country. If the UN wants to comment on stingy, that would do it. I would say it's not ow much, but how many.
That sounds nice but that's not how our government was set up in the Constitution. And just WHO gets to decide where our confiscated funds will best perform!?
What do you think are the odds that India, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Indonesia will put together a warning system such as that established for the Pacific Ocean? That will offer coastal cities some advance warning of the next possible tsunami? There were disasterous tsunamis in the Indian Ocean in1883, 1941, and 2004. Almost a 60-year cycle. The next in the Indian Ocen might (or might not) happen in 2064, give a take a year or two. I hope they're ready then...
Do you suppose they'll ask for us to pay for it?
And conservatism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with constitutionalism.
Show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says that.
Leave it to those governed purely by emotion to say what you just said and to give away confiscated funds any way their whim dictates.
The point is moot. However, the US Navy is on the scene rescuing survivors, and that is a lot more expensive than the few $ million allocated from the Federal slush fund.
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.