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.

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.