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.
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.
Good. Glad you agree.
I would venture to suspect if one properly explained that it is "our" tax dollars being given away a great number of Americans would take issue with it and like I and others on this thread feel that we, as individuals, should have and take the responsibility to make that decision for ourselves and not have "the government" arbitrarily make it for us. Especially given the shape "our national financial house" is in at the present.
Consider: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The USGS and NOAA knew of a seismic event of 8.0+ off the coast of Sumtra as it happened and a few hours before the waves strcuk. As I understand it, the word went out to authorities in the region. If the word had reached the cities on the coasts of India, Bangledesh, Sumatra, Thailand, and Sri Lanka in the intervening hours, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saveed and this stupid argumant of how stingy the United States is wouldn't be happening.
I think if we warned them well in advance and the warnings would simply have been heeded, we were being extraordinarily generous where it counts and saving everybody millions, or even billions, of dollars in relief.
This is one taxpayer who thinks the world was given plenty long before the disaster hit.
Ah, our tax money is.
"This is one taxpayer who thinks the world was given plenty long before the disaster hit."
And, another one!
Where does the Constitution grant that power?
Reel it in there, pal.
The president of the United States can do AS HE SEES fit with the money you paid in in taxes in situations like this.
If you don't want to donate more, don't.
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: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.
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.