February 9, 2005
Attacking Foreign Aid Doesn’t Help Us!
Not Yours To Give
U.S. Government Should Not Help Tsunami Victims
Is the U.S. stingy with tsunami aid? Who cares.
Editorial: Raise Taxes to Pay for SE Asia Tsunami Aid
In a corollary to my previous post, The Problem With Libertarians, I have to ask whether we have bigger fish to fry. For the record, I do believe that we, as a country, shouldn’t be forced to give aid from our tax dollars to other countries. I think, when you look at it, foreign aid is one of those things that is not easily defensible from a constitutional standpoint.
But really, is it the most important thing we have to argue about? As a libertarian, opposing governmental foreign aid is idealogically consistent. And considering that Americans give an enormous amount through private charities, we can easily make the argument that governmental aid is unnecessary. If we’re looking at advancing libertarian goals, however, shouldn’t we focus on ending government funding of bad things? Whether you agree or disagree with governmental foreign aid, most of us can agree that helping people is a good thing. Perhaps if we start by opposing government waste and idiotic programs, we’ll get somewhere. Attacking the US Government for providing aid to tsunami victims just seems mean.
3 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So basically I should not say anything about a topic I feel is just as important because you think libertarians should only focus on issues that are politically correct? Is that a fair assessment?
I don’t want to sound like I’m jumping down your throat, but I do talk about those other issues you pointed out, if you took the time to read, oh… the first page of my site. The fact that there are several topical issues that I discuss does not mean I’m going to leave out the one’s that aren’t “most important.” Teaching libertarianism isn’t always about showing the evil of government, sometimes it’s about showing a lazy society that’s willing to let that government think for them, as in this case.
Stephen,
Upon a second reading of your post, I do see it a little differently. I would likely have argued just as strongly against a tax hike in this case, and I would have argued just as strongly that we don’t particularly need the government to be doing so much, when we do so much with private charity already.
My point, and I have been criticized for this in the past, is that we do need to consider political expediency. The Democrats, who in most cases have an end goal of socializing most of our society, don’t come right out and say that. They understand that if they make arguments that move this country incrementally towards socialism, they can get us there eventually without sounding like that’s their goal.
I think we libertarians run a risk when we do push such anti-PC causes, because it leads other people to not take us seriously on some of the other major planks of our platform. While I agree that the US government shouldn’t force us to donate in foreign aid, it’s a small drop in a very large bucket. I think focusing our strength and our attacks on taking cups of water out of the bucket rather than drops will pay off more in the long run.
But as I said, upon a second reading of your post, I realize that you didn’t argue the point I had assumed on my first reading. I think often when we advance an argument against foreign aid in the wake of a major crisis, it looks bad. Your post, on the other hand, was a defensive response to someone who desires to implement yet another tax to support foreign aid.
While I would tend to agree that tax dollars should not be used for things such as Tsunami Relief Fund, this is not the same as saying that we in the private sector should not open our wallets.
There is a difference, one is voluntary. I have no problem with the use of our “delivery systems”; military vessels and personel to help with logistics.