|
President Bush,
Senators Miller & Cleland,
Congressman Linder,
Other Members of the Georgia Congressional Delegation,
Corporate and humanitarian charities are not a proper function of government. Tenderhearted associations willing to give their own time and money to relieve suffering best manage them.
Government directed charity is immoral and creates disruptive free market incentives. A significant portion of the U.S. federal budget is nothing more than political charity and favoritism.
The difference between total socialist statism and what we have now is the degree to which the socialism is implemented. If it is appropriate for the state to expropriate and consume 40% of private income, why not take all of it? Unfortunately, having no control over our property and lives will turn us into wards of the state. This is what destroyed socialist economies in the latter half of the 20th century. Expanding government control over the means of production only increases the incentive to manipulate government.
All theft, including government-sanctioned theft; leads to violence. A homeowner will use the threat of violence to defend against armed robbery. This is a defensive use of force against illegal theft and it is just. Legal theft turns justice upside down by restricting our God given right to defend private property.
People understand the attraction of legal theft. We understand why businesses, associations, and lobbyist pour money into campaign coffers. We understand why liars and lawyers are always whispering in political ears. The game is legal theft. Recent history teaches us that violence will be used to stop government-sanctioned theft prior to state control of--all--productive means.
The CATO Institute calculates that U.S. taxpayers bankroll over 85 BILLION dollars of corporate welfare every year. Fix this one problem and you will do two things.
-
The economy will improve because government red tape, favoritism, and expense will have been reduced. Reduced government spending will mean more money will be available for consumers, investors, and businesses.
Instead of using government force to enrich others, you will have used government force to defend private property and the pursuit of happiness. This is what you swore to uphold.
The articles below are from an August 2nd update I received from The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, VA. They make my same points. Please take the time to read both and to share them with your peers.
Wes Alexander
Whales and Compassion by Bart Frazier
On Monday (July 29, 2002) a pod of 54 pilot whales beached themselves on a beach in Cape
Cod, Mass. The beaching of whales and dolphins is a regular occurrence on
Cape Cod, particularly large numbers of pilot whales because their
gregarious nature leads to mass strandings.
Because of these regular strandings, a group of volunteers, the Cape Cod
Stranding Network, monitor the beaches and converge on beached whales when
they are found. In this instance, 100 volunteers cared for the
whales--covering their bodies with wet towels to prevent sunburn,
euthanizing those animals who were beyond saving, and eventually pushing the
3 ton animals back out to sea. At first, the laudable efforts of these
volunteers were able to save the lives of 46 out of the 54 whales. And
although the saved whales perished when they rebeached themselves the next
day, these volunteers should be commended for their efforts.
This episode of voluntary charity begs the question, "Why doesn't the
government save beached whales?" After all, the government has claimed
responsibility for the poor and the old, so why should it stop there? The
argument goes that if Social Security and welfare were not available, the
unfortunates of society would be dying in the streets.
Herein lies the irony. After a pod of whales, which arguably are less
important than human beings, was stranded, a whole army of volunteers
mobilized to save their lives. How can one not see that if humans were in
need of the same care, the same response, if not more intense, would
alleviate the problem?
Instead of relying on voluntary charity and good will towards men, the federal government continues its welfare-state policy of using the IRS to forcibly take money from everyone in order to distribute the money to some, all in the name of morality and righteousness. But where is the morality in coercion, as compared to voluntary choices? Moreover, these coercive
transfer programs have created a class of people who have been deprived of
their sense of self-reliance and freedom of choice, and they have also
seriously damaged the community of charity that at one time provided for all
before socialistic welfare-state programs changed the nature of the federal
government. It is time to repeal these programs and return to a society
where charity is obtained from the heartfelt voluntary actions of
individuals, not the hollow morality of government transfer programs.
Farmers Should Oppose Socialism by Scott McPherson
The Brownsville, Tennessee, offices of the Department of Agriculture were
the scene of a recent five-day sit-in by black farmers who claim that
government loan applications are being stalled by a racist system. Instead
of complaining about racism, though, they should be complaining about
socialism.
Over the last 70 years, the American agriculture industry has become a
virtual subsidiary of the federal government. Decades of New Deal
socialistic programs have propped up farmers through price supports, crop
subsidies, and even payment for leaving land fallow. The wedding of
government and agriculture is so complete that it's hard to tell who owns
whom.
Typically, farmers complain that they just cannot compete with large
corporate farms, and that, therefore, they need government assistance to
stay afloat. For certain, the Jeffersonian ideal of a nation of yeoman
farmers did go out the window with the Industrial Revolution. Mechanization
brought more-efficient farming methods, driving down prices and weeding out
inefficient farms. In short, the free market had the same effect on
agriculture that it does on everything else -- the profitable survive and
prosper, while those unable to compete fall by the wayside.
That is not a bad thing. When new methods of production put people out of
work, the newly unemployed go to work elsewhere, adding to the net wealth of
society. Ask any economist worth his salt, and he'll tell you this is good.
But the free-market process was greatly undermined in the 1930s. Under
President Roosevelt, cradle-to-grave welfare-statism gained a firm hold over
American culture, especially in economic life, resulting in such absurd
suggestions as "the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at
a return which will give him and his family a decent living." Welfare
programs such as farm supports were permanently enshrined into American
life.
Supposedly motivated by a desire to provide security for workers (the quest
for power might also have played a role), the federal government set out to
insulate certain industries from market gales, providing subsidies for
everything from agriculture and automobiles to airlines and Amtrak. The
result of this business safety net has been a growing belief that success is
no longer something to be had by besting your competitors in the
marketplace, but rather the result of savvy political maneuvering for more
government handouts.
Enterprising members of our greatest industries once poured their lives into
hard work. Today, much of that energy is ploughed into manipulating
government officials for a bigger chunk of the booty.
But a limited pool of resources to be redistributed means someone must go
without, because before the government can give, it must first take away. So
the players in the game jockey for position over their fellows. In time,
choosing sides becomes a simple game of "us" against "them."
Thus, when an industry is receiving special treatment from the government,
those who control the government are in the position to reward those they
like and punish those they don't. Over the years, this has resulted in
favoritism, nepotism, and corruption.
When the power of redistribution lies with a handful of federal bureaucrats,
people who will never have to personally face the consequences of their
decisions, who can honestly be surprised when immoral and unethical
prejudices come to color the scramble for unearned wealth?
If black farmers truly want equal treatment they should demand a truly level
playing field, one in which government leaves everyone free to stand or fall
on his own merits. In a free-market environment, black farmers could reap
the rewards of their hard work without seeing it siphoned off in the form of
welfare to prop up their counterparts.
Sadly, the black farmers' sit-in in Tennessee misdiagnosed the problem
altogether. Leaving the Agricultural Department offices, protest leader Gary
Grant called on the government "to do ... the right thing by all farmers,
especially black farmers." Regardless of their own good intentions, these
farmers are hoeing the wrong row. Socialism, not racism, lies at the root of
America's agricultural woes.
Scott McPherson is policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
in Fairfax, Va.
|
