Why I hate Ayn Rand, lesson #364

[gridlore]

A op-ed piece on the Ayn Rand Institute site declarte that the government should not send aid to tsunami-ravaged areas.

A few specific points here..

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?

Try the Constitution of the United States, moron. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the Congress the right to levy taxes and duties. The 16th Amendment specifically authorized the income tax. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 allows the Congress to draw money from the Treasury.

But how did Congress get there? We voted them into office. Thus is a representative government. I vote for a Congressman, 2 Senators, and the Presidential ticket on the national level. We get the government we ask for. Anyone having a problem with this is cordially invited to leave the country, or, work to elect people who agree with you.

Then there is the question of why send the aid? Let's ignore the fact that the government is good at moving masses of supplies on short notice. Ignore the vast fleet of military aircraft available to carry supplies.. let's examine what we get for out money.

1. Improved standing in the region. US aid on the ground helps our image. For those of you who didn't know, the vast majority of the world's muslims don't live in the Middle East, they live in SE Asia, specifically Indonesia (almost 700 million of them.) Indonesia is going to be the battleground in about 20 years, mark my words.

2. Without immediate action, the current death toll is just the beginning. Disease and famine are a very real threat. Ground water has been contaminated, thousands of bodies are unburied. Cholera, diptheria, dysentary.. all are going to crop up and kill people.

3. Lastly, and this will be a shock to the Randites.. it is the RIGHT BLOODY THING TO DO! Hundreds of thousands of people are dead and missing! There is no excuse not to help!

I swear, I want to smack some of these idiots.

And of course, Fred Phelps had to open his hateful mouth on the subject... (links to a PDF)

Thanks to lysana for the links.

Comments

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Phelps is an idiot, but my Randian friends are right about this. Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to spend funds specifically for the purpose of charitable donations to foreign nations? Congress may raise funds, but only spend them on such items as are authorized. All the rest is reserved to the people and the states (10th Amendment).

I believe that we, as individuals, should send assistance via such organizations as the Red Cross, and I've already done so - days ago. I am completely opposed to using tax dollars for this purpose, and always will be. The way to demonstrate a generous spirit is by reaching into one's own wallet, and not the wallets of others via taxes.

Incidentally, it was the 16th Amendment that authorized the hideous income tax, and the sooner it's repealed, the better. The 19th Amendment gave women the vote.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

There is a budget item every year for forgein aid, and another for discretionary spending. Requested by the President, and voted on by Congress.

Thanks, the Amendment has been fixed.

[ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com]

I think the argument isn't so much whether there *is* such a budget item, but if said item is Constitutionally authorised.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Precisely.

Try and wrap your mind around this.

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

It's the government using the money to help people live, for once, instead of using it to kill, kill, kill or putting it in their own pockets.

If the Randians have a problem with *that* concept, then they need serious psychological counselling.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com]

We generally have a problem with them using it for anything.

On account of it not actually being their money, y'see.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying if they simply must use it, I'd rather they use it like this instead instead of Business As Usual.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com]

Two wrongs, they do not make a right.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

It is. Under the law, the government collects a varity of taxes and fees, and uses them according to the law. That's part of the agreement we live under.

Tell me, is that paycheck yours? Or does it still belong to your employer?

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Your point about the money is apt. The paycheck is ours once our employer has given it to us, and the money that the government collects constitutionally they are certainly entitled to spend on our behalf. However, the agreement we live under is the US Constitution, which rather strictly proscribes just how those taxes and fees may be used.

Sadly, some of my Randian and libertarian friends occasionally forget that our constitution is not a libertarian document, much as we all might wish it were. It is simply a document enumerating (and thus limiting) the powers of the federal government. I don't like (import) tariffs or income taxes, but I'd never argue that they were unconstitutional. However, if Congress doesn't have the right to spend money for a particular purpose, it doesn't matter in the least whether that purpose is a good or evil one. Foreign aid spending, for example, might be seen by many Americans as a good cause (I'm not sure it is, though), but it's still unconstitutional.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com]

It is. Under the law, the government collects a varity of taxes and fees, and uses them according to the law. That's part of the agreement we live under.

Well, I could start by arguing that I'm not actually living under an agreement. My citizenship was imposed upon me without my consent and continues to be imposed by force. Indeed, being British, even if I acquire someone else's first, I cannot terminate this "agreement" however much I want to.

But if we're going by agreements we live under, that would in this case - theoretically - start with the Constitution, in which I find the following enumeration of Congress's powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I'm not seeing anything there granting the government any power whatsoever to indulge in foreign aid at the taxpayer's expense. Or in the powers assigned to the other two branches, either.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Foreign aid provides for the defence and welfare in several ways:

1. Aid can stabilize a region.

2. Aid can open new markets for US goods.

3. The Agency for International Development is one of the largest buyers of US wheat. That wheat is used in foreign aid. I think the wheat farmers approve of this. Other industries also benefit directly from aid packages.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com]

I'd be a lot more convinced of (1) if I could think of some examples, really.

As for 2 and 3, as I'm one of the people who opposes both welfare *and* corporate subsidy on the robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul principle, I'm afraid I'm going to be pretty much the same here.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

How about the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II? Europe was in shambles, and we pumped in billions of dollars to help France, Germany, and the Low Countries get back on their feet. Imagine what Europe would look like today had we simply left Germany and France the way they were in May, 1945.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

Yup.

And the best way to fight epidemic diseases is where they start, rather than waiting until they reach your shores.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

For the record, there are both pro- and anti-war Randians. And most of what our government spends, in federal budget dollars, is not for killing.

I agree that people who, absent any context, would rather see money used to kill rather than help people live need counseling. In particular, I strongly disagree with those who both support the war and object to foreign aid for victims of natural or human disasters. An interventionist with good motives (I freely acknowlege that there are such) ought to recommend any intervention (military or peaceful) for the ultimate goal of helping people. Someone who advocates non-defensive war and also objects to helping the disadvantaged overseas carries an unpleasant whiff of nationalistic tyranny.

In the order in which unconstitutional budget items ought to be cut, the war in Iraq would be the first target for my knife, followed by the budget for most (if not all) overseas troop deployments, followed by all foreign aid, followed by Medicare and Social Security. Then we could cut taxes and cut even more spending at our leisure, because we'd have huge surpluses.

Bottom line? In both political principle, and according to our constitution, it is neither the place of the federal government to invade a sovereign nation which has done us no harm, nor to spend its citizens dollars unconstitutionally even in good causes.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

[ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com]

In particular, I strongly disagree with those who both support the war and object to foreign aid for victims of natural or human disasters. An interventionist with good motives (I freely acknowlege that there are such) ought to recommend any intervention (military or peaceful) for the ultimate goal of helping people.

Depends on what you think the point of the war is, really. I'm an interventionist inasmuch as I have a compelling interest in the survival of the US specifically and Western civilisation generally; but I'm not at all concerned with intervening for altruistic purposes. So I have that position you disagree with strongly, in essence, because I want intervention wherein it serves my national/civilisational self-interest, and not elsewhere.

But then, I'd argue for the necessity of pre-emptive defence being the best defence, too.

Someone who advocates non-defensive war and also objects to helping the disadvantaged overseas carries an unpleasant whiff of nationalistic tyranny.

In the order in which unconstitutional budget items ought to be cut, the war in Iraq would be the first target for my knife, followed by the budget for most (if not all) overseas troop deployments, followed by all foreign aid, followed by Medicare and Social Security. Then we could cut taxes and cut even more spending at our leisure, because we'd have huge surpluses.

Bottom line? In both political principle, and according to our constitution, it is neither the place of the federal government to invade a sovereign nation which has done us no harm, nor to spend its citizens dollars unconstitutionally even in good causes.

Well...

[seawasp]

1) The Constitution is not a "right". So when they ask "by what right", so far no one has established that there is a "right" involved.

2) The principle of "by what right" applies whether it's tsunami aid (a nice convenient 'how terrible you are if you don't' subject) or buying weapons or materials from other nasty countries, or anything else.

3) "We" did not vote them into office. I don't accept that concept and never will, certainly not so long as I see not a single election which actually goes in the direction I want it to. There is no sign whatsoever that my opinion on any subject matters to the nebulous organization we call "government".

4) Randites have no trouble with offering aid. ON THE INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE. In other words, if you, or me, or anyone else, wants to send aid, by all means, do so. The objection has to do with taking money which is stolen from the entire country and spending it on things that some people may or may not want to spend it on -- whether that's humanitarian aid, thermonuclear weapons, space travel, or whatever.

I don't disagree with your sentiments as to whether certain things are right or wrong to do overall, like give aid. I also agree with the GOOD reason you gave for a government to get involved (improve standing and international relations), which *IS* a reason which can be used to justify governmental actions; assuming you MUST have a government, the sensible thing for the government to do is to take actions that improve the standing of the country as a whole.

I, personally, contribute to certain charities, including to disaster relief of this sort. I just don't believe anyone should be forced to do so at the point of a metaphorical or actual gun, which is the case any time the government decides of its own accord to perform acts of charity.

If you believe in the "will of the people" as the guide, then any time the government wants to do this kind of thing, it should be subject to a vote. If your attitude is representative (and I believe it probably is) then the government would have a mandate to distribute humanitarian aid. As it is, it's a very few men making the decision. Men to whom I most certainly did NOT give the authority to take my money and send it overseas.

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

I'll notice he doesn't list the US's single biggest foreign aid recipient. Wonder why? :-/

I'll also note that few Randians seem to be moving to locations where they can be free of government interference. Somalia, say.