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 $15 billion recently promised to fight AIDS in Africa to the countless amounts spent to help the victims of earthquakes, fires and floods--from South America to Asia. Even the enemies of the United States were given money extorted from American taxpayers: from the billions given away by Clinton to help the starving North Koreans to the billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians under Arafat's murderous regime.
The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?
The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism--the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it's worth--those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans--the wealthiest people on earth--are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it. It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. It is past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.
Next time a politician gives away money taken from you to show what a good, compassionate altruist he is, ask yourself: By what right?
David Holcberg is a research associate at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif.
@#$@#$^
The ARI doesn't even represent most objectivists, let alone even a tiny minority of libertarians.
Charity begins at home - NOT at the revenue agent's desk!
Just like how the UNION leaders "Know" where union dues are to be spent during an election....
How about bullet proof vests and armor for humvees in Iraq...
The government should have AT FIRST forgiven THEIR DEBT...but no he didn't do that he jumped straight into handing out TAX PAYER DOLLARS that should GO TO OUR TROOPS AND NATIONAL SECURITY!
Anyone remember the movie " the mouse that roared"?
It was about a poor make believe country that attacked the US in order to surrender and collect foreign aid. It seems to me there is some truth in that comedy.
more info on UN demanded aid... http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
Wow!
"There are too many people stuffed on the beaches of Florida.
There are too many people who make stupid choices of where they live...and I for one do not want to have to pay for their dumb selection of living areas.
If they are flooded out, then let themselves pay for their stupidity.
If their homes are destroyed by volcanoes, then let them pay for their stupidity.
If their homes are destroyed by earthquakes, then let them cover the costs.
I fail to see why it is my responsibility to pay for someone elses stupid choices"
What a guy/gal! The milk of human kindness NOT!! So, you've never made a bad decision in your life?Amazing! If I were you, I'd look up the meaning of "Karma", and take heed of what it means...or didn't you know that what we give out, is what we receive.
Yikes, looks like you're going to be hit by a Tsunami,tornadoes,hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions!Serves you right!
There are political realities to consider. We could not move in one step in the direction you suggest. But, it does look bad this game of continually upping the ante because someone called us stingy and to make our country look good.
There are also considerations with regard to security in that part of the world, at least as I have heard the argument put - not that I am ready to subscribe to it. It goes like this. If we do not step in and help, factions at war with us will and exploit your non-giving to recruit people to their cause.
Now, the best way to handle this giving in a crisis would be for the President to step up to the microphone and make an appeal for private charitable contributions. Show the world how generous we as Americans are, really generous. Then keep a close tally on that. Let him be the cheerleader for the donations instead of just writing the check.
I bet privately we would give as much as the government is pledgeing. The government would then kick in the C130's, military, etc. But cash would come from private citizens voluntary contributions.
Exactly. If you ever run for office, I look forward to voting for you!
Well, that's seven votes.
I'd only hold the office with the intent of holding the job for four years, focused on getting stuff done and not a second thought about reelection. Want to hear a couple of my other key points in my plateform?
Most of what Libby Holcberg believes I flatly disagree with, save our full application of his theory as standard practice in the future when, in the advent of a disaster, the recipient of our generosity and/or kindness in the will be France and/or the French. Fk em'.
I'm sorry, I just find this horribly selfish. Helping out nearly 200,000 people is more important than our freaking national debt.
If we were really flush in the national coffers and not in debt and not funding every year with deficit spending (borrowing against future tax receipts) it might be a different story. And besides the government does not manage many things efficiently as they (the government) is using some one else's money.
It really sticks in my craw my friend, but not that the people don't need the help and that I don't want to help. I just believe it is an individual responsibility and "choice" to do so.
No Scrooge here when it comes to giving.
Thanks for the link - what an incredible lesson - if only congress would read it....
Amen.
U.S. should help, using private funds donated through charities. That way it's true charity, not compulsory.
Davy Crockett said it well:
http://www.trimonline.org/congress/articles/crockett.htm
J.C. never forced anyone to help anyone else. You only make points with him if you do it volunatarily.
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.