US out of Haiti: NO GOV'T AID

[powerofreason]

This is a poll on the subject of US Government aid to Haiti earthquake victims. Are you for it or against it? As a principled libertarian I am against it.

[Chaohinon]

I'd like to say that the U.S. Government owes reparations to Haiti for its involvement in their debt-slavery. But given that any money given to Haiti would just be plunder extracted from citizens...no.

Of course, if we could somehow capture a handful of the wealthiest U.S. politicians/corporate executives, and empty their pockets into the hands of Haitians, I'd be all for it.

[dannno]

No.

As an emergency measure, if we had troops near by already who could go in and help pull people out of buildings right after to help save lives immediately, I see no problem with that.

It's like if you're walking down the street and you see somebody in trouble and you can help them, you help them due to a combination of your proximity and their urgent distress.

I don't think they want our help longterm.. even if they think they do now.

[dr. hfn]

Not Yours to Give

[TonySutton]

volunteer citizen units already do a great job and if the government would keep its meddling fingers out of everything, the charities would have a ton more money available when terrible things like earthquakes do occur.

[BenIsForRon]

I agree that if we had lower taxes and no standing Army, charitable organizations would have more money and resources to do this.

Under the current circumstances, with thousands of troops that were already about to be deployed to Afghanistan, the US military can fill a needed role in this crisis. I don't want that to be our military's role until the end of time, but right now they have the ability to save lives. Ideology be damned.

[dannno]

I agree that if we had lower taxes and no standing Army, charitable organizations would have more money and resources to do this.

Under the current circumstances, with thousands of troops that were already about to be deployed to Afghanistan, the US military can fill a needed role in this crisis. I don't want that to be our military's role until the end of time, but right now they have the ability to save lives. Ideology be damned.

The military needs to be out within 4 or 5 days after the earthquake. After people who are trapped in buildings are all dead, they should leave. There is no service they can provide that would benefit Haiti after this period.

You should help keep this bumped:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=226573

If Obama came out and instead of saying that we are going to send our military from around the world and spend a bunch of taxpayer money, instead asked the American people to donate, there would be plenty of money donated. Obama F'd up big time.

I agree with Ron Paul on principle that our military would be better served in Haiti than in Afghanistan, that doesn't mean they should be in either place longer than it takes to get people out of buildings.

[jmdrake]

I agree that if we had lower taxes and no standing Army, charitable organizations would have more money and resources to do this.

Under the current circumstances, with thousands of troops that were already about to be deployed to Afghanistan, the US military can fill a needed role in this crisis. I don't want that to be our military's role until the end of time, but right now they have the ability to save lives. Ideology be damned.

Yep. Immediate emergency aid yes. Long term interference no.

[Cowlesy]

Not Yours to Give

bingo

[erowe1]

I agree that if we had lower taxes and no standing Army, charitable organizations would have more money and resources to do this.

Under the current circumstances, with thousands of troops that were already about to be deployed to Afghanistan, the US military can fill a needed role in this crisis. I don't want that to be our military's role until the end of time, but right now they have the ability to save lives. Ideology be damned.

I have a certain sympathy for this. But ultimately, I disagree. Giving the military this additional role just further entrenches the perceived need for our standing army and makes it more likely that it will, in fact, end up being their role until the end of time.

[dannno]

Obama has been encouraging donations to private organizations, telling people to text Haiti to 90999, so far 6 million has been raised by that alone, and more has been raised for the state department, just look at the whitehouse.gov site... I think Obama is handling this pretty well to be honest with you.

Ya but by promising US aid (which never really helps anyway) he is giving people this false sense of security that the government will help, so they don't have to do anything... even if he is also encouraging people to donate.

[misterx]

Death is a natural part of life. If the whole island fell into the ocean there would still be over 6 billion people in the world.

[REDNECK WOMAN]

God bless those people but however we are broke and we haven't even taken care of the Katrina Victims. In New Orleans it looks like the hurricane just happen yesterday. We need to help our own and then if we have extra money then help outside our Country.

[rp08orbust]

This is a poll on the subject of US Government aid to Haiti earthquake victims. Are you for it or against it? As a principled libertarian I am against it.

As a principled libertarian, I'm in favor of any non-violent expenditure by an otherwise coercive state because it (a) brings the state closer to bankruptcy and (b) diverts the state's loot from the funding of violence.

This is the exact same reasoning I use in defense of Ron Paul accepting his Congressional salary and earmarking as much of the federal budget for his district as he can.

[Dunedain]

Throw your own personal cash at the problem if you will. But not the money of all Americans.

[andrewh817]

No.
It's like if you're walking down the street and you see somebody in trouble and you can help them, you help them due to a combination of your proximity and their urgent distress.

I don't think they want our help longterm.. even if they think they do now.

Actually it's not like that, because the aid is stolen money. It's better than some other things they might use the money for but it's still blood money.

[Dieseler]

Deliver aide and equipment then GTFO.

[rp08orbust]

Actually it's not like that, because the aid is stolen money. It's better than some other things they might use the money for but it's still blood money.

That's superstition about it being "blood money" because it was stolen. The fact is there are no identifiable individual victims when the government spends money on strictly non-violent activities. The crime is in the stealing of the money, not in the giving of it away. A thief neither compounds nor mitigates his crime by giving the loot to charity.

See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201547

[rp08orbust]

Throw your own personal cash at the problem if you will. But not the money of all Americans.

Please explain--collectivist concepts like "the money of all Americans" do not compute.

[catdd]

Deliver a shipment of cloths, food, etc. but no cash.

[Mini-Me]

That's superstition about it being "blood money" because it was stolen. The fact is there are no identifiable individual victims when the government spends money on strictly non-violent activities. The crime is in the stealing of the money, not in the giving of it away. A thief neither compounds nor mitigates his crime by giving the loot to charity.

See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201547

This is only really applicable when you're talking about a government spending within its means though; in our current situation, every dollar the government spends is already well beyond the amount previously collected in taxes, and so it actually demands further borrowing and future taxation (or a printing press).

That said, while I'm against foreign aid and taxation on principle, the money we're spending on Haiti isn't worth fighting for IMO. We only have so much time and energy, and there are certainly far worse ways the government is spending far more money at this very moment. There are so many other budget cuts that would be more worthwhile to fight for...like stopping the government from throwing around a trillion here and there for wars and banker bailouts. However, what I AM worried about is turning a humanitarian mission into a "secure Haiti" mission, then a nation-building mission, then an occupation. I'm worried about the government putting a bunch of armed US soldiers over there, who will then be used for authoritarian purposes.

[rp08orbust]

This is only really applicable when you're talking about a government spending within its means though; in our current situation, every dollar the government spends is already well beyond the amount previously collected in taxes, and so it actually demands further borrowing and future taxation (or a printing press).

Everything I said still applies to a government in debt. Printing and distributing fiat money is not a crime. Printing money is only fraudulent when the money purports to be backed a commodity, which ours hasn't since 1971. The crime in our monetary system is not in the printing of money, but in the forcing of us to use it.

[brandon]

Not Yours to Give

A must read for everyone interested in liberty...


http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

[Mini-Me]

Everything I said still applies to a government in debt. Printing and distributing fiat money is not a crime. Printing money is only fraudulent when the money purports to be backed a commodity, which ours hasn't since 1971. The crime in our monetary system is not in the printing of money, but in the forcing of us to use it.

This is true, but printing money exacerbates the harm caused by forcing people to use it, much like putting Tabasco sauce and ebola on a knife exacerbates the pain caused by stabbing someone with it.

[erowe1]

Everything I said still applies to a government in debt. Printing and distributing fiat money is not a crime. Printing money is only fraudulent when the money purports to be backed a commodity, which ours hasn't since 1971. The crime in our monetary system is not in the printing of money, but in the forcing of us to use it.

That's not true. To spend money it doesn't have the government must increase the money supply commensurately, which is a de facto tax. The only way to avoid that tax is by not doing that spending.

When the inflation tax is included in our understanding of taxation (as it should be), it becomes a truism that spending always equals taxes, whether the budget is balanced or not, so that any increase in government spending is automatically an increase in theft.

[rp08orbust]

That's not true. To spend money it doesn't have the government must increase the money supply commensurately, which is a de facto tax. The only way to avoid that tax is by not doing that spending.

Action A does not equal action B just because B often follows (or always has followed) A. They are two separate actions with two separate moral qualities.

Spending $100M on Haiti means the US government may opt to raise $100M in taxes or print $100M at some point in the future, but this is not logically necessary. The US government could hold a fundraiser and replace the $100M with voluntary donations, or if it doesn't raise enough from the fundraiser, it could sell a portion of its assets instead. The US government could see the light of voluntarism and operate on a 100% voluntary basis from this moment forward.


When the inflation tax is included in our understanding of taxation (as it should be), it becomes a truism that spending always equals taxes, whether the budget is balanced or not, so that any increase in government spending is automatically an increase in theft.

I'm well aware of the "inflation tax" argument, and certainly agree with it when it comes to real money. But when it comes to paper money that represents nothing--i.e., is not a contract for a specific commodity--then its creators have a private property right and a freedom of speech right to print as much of it they want. You and I have the same fundamental rights, provided we don't pass the bills off in exchanges as having been printed by the Federal Reserve, which would be falsifying our contracts (fraud).

Yes, it sucks for those who foolishly attempt to store their wealth in those same fiat bills, just as it would suck if I were storing my wealth in rare Yugioh cards which were later diluted by its creators. But the creators of Yugioh cards would not be "taxing" me. They would only be committing aggression if they threatened violence against me if I stopped using them.

[Mini-Me]

Action A does not equal action B just because B often follows (or always has followed) A. They are two separate actions with two separate moral qualities.

Spending $100M on Haiti means the US government may opt to raise $100M in taxes or print $100M at some point in the future, but this is not logically necessary. The US government could hold a fundraiser and replace the $100M with voluntary donations, or if it doesn't raise enough from the fundraiser, it could sell a portion of its assets instead. The US government could see the light of voluntarism and operate on a 100% voluntary basis from this moment forward.



I'm well aware of the "inflation tax" argument, and certainly agree with it when it comes to real money. But when it comes to paper money that represents nothing--i.e., is not a contract for a specific commondity--then its creators have a private property right and a freedom of speech right to print as much of it they want. You and I have the same right, provided we don't pass them off in exchanges as having been printed by the Federal Reserve, which would be fraud.
By denying everyone else their equal right to print paper money, do those in government not relinquish their own right to print money? Think in terms of natural law and criminal justice: Violating someone's rights implies forfeiting your own rights proportionally. "Justice" for the actors of government does not simply mean having to end their crime spree, much as justice for a burglar does not simply mean ceasing to rob new houses.




Yes, it sucks for those who foolishly attempt to store their wealth in those same fiat bills, just as it would suck if I were storing my wealth in rare Yugioh cards which were later diluted by its creators. But the creators of Yugioh cards would not be "taxing" me. They would only be committing aggression if they threatened violence against me if I stopped using them.

[erowe1]

Action A does not equal action B just because B often follows (or always has followed) A. They are two separate actions with two separate moral qualities.

That would make sense if we were talking about a situation where action A did not necessarily entail action B. But in this case we are talking about a case where action A does necessarily action B. Just as a person who points a gun at you and pulls the trigger is culpable for the bullet that comes out and kills you, so the state is culpable when it spends money that did not exist until the government called it into existence to spend and thus increases the money supply and devalues the currency, imposing a de facto tax on all who possess that currency.

[erowe1]

when it comes to paper money that represents nothing--i.e., is not a contract for a specific commodity--then its creators have a private property right and a freedom of speech right to print as much of it they want.

Not when they combine those actions with legal tender laws, using lethal force to require the rest of us to use that fiat money of theirs whether we want to or not.

[rp08orbust]

By denying everyone else their equal right to print paper money, do those in government not relinquish their own right to print money? Think in terms of natural law and criminal justice: Violating someone's rights implies forfeiting your own rights proportionally. "Justice" for the actors of government does not simply mean having to end their crime spree, much as justice for a burglar does not simply mean ceasing to rob new houses.

Well this is big change of subject--it's about punishment for the crime of statism, as Walter Block would describe it. Those guilty of enforcing laws contrary to nature/the non-aggression axiom should be fined, jailed, etc. Those operating the Federal Reserve's printing presses, on the other hand, have committed no aggression against anyone, if pressing the "copy" button is all they've done. There is no logic in prohibiting person A from continuing to press the copy button just because person B has been confiscating liberty dollars from person C. It's person B who needs to be punished.

[rp08orbust]

That would make sense if we were talking about a situation where action A did not necessarily entail action B. But in this case we are talking about a case where action A does necessarily action B.

I just told you how action A (sending $100M to Haiti from the US Treasury) could be taken without also taking action B (raising $100M in taxes or increasing the monetary base by $100M). They are not logically equivalent.

[rp08orbust]

Not when they combine those actions with legal tender laws, using lethal force to require the rest of us to use that fiat money of theirs whether we want to or not.

Well again, it's the lethal force that is criminal, not the printing of the fiat money.

If I painted portraits of myself and forced you to "buy" them at gunpoint, it would be incoherent to call the act of painting "criminal". The only crime, obviously, is pulling the gun.

[erowe1]

I just told you how action A (sending $100M to Haiti from the US Treasury) could be taken without also taking action B (raising $100M in taxes or increasing the monetary base by $100M). They are not logically equivalent.

Yeah, you told me that. But you just made it up. It's not true. When bank reserves are kept in the bank and not lent out and spent, they don't increase the money supply. It's only when they are spent that the inflation tax takes effect.

[erowe1]

Well again, it's the lethal force that is criminal, not the printing of the fiat money.

If I painted portraits of myself and forced you to "buy" them at gunpoint, it would be incoherent to call the act of painting "criminal". The only crime, obviously, is pulling the gun.

It's the combination of the two. The lethal force is wrong in itself. And the printing wouldn't be wrong without the lethal force. But in combination, they are both wrong, because in that situation the printing becomes stealing.

[forsmant]

In the time libertarians debate on whether helping the Haitians with government money or not more sensible people are just donating their time, money and supplies. This is a time for action. Does it really matter? This is helping your neighbor clean up after a disaster. Arguing over who is more principled and has the highest moral standards is ridiculous. Desire trumps ethics and morals on an individual basis daily. That is the real reason for government.

[silverhandorder]

If we have capability to help why not help? It's not like we are undertaking an effort from across the world it is right here next to us.

[rp08orbust]

Yeah, you told me that. But you just made it up. It's not true.

Whaaaaaaat???? You're arguing that if I never choose a certain action, then the action is impossible?

The US government could operate on a voluntary basis. The fact that it hasn't and probably won't for the foreseeable future doesn't mean it can't.

[rp08orbust]

It's the combination of the two. The lethal force is wrong in itself. And the printing wouldn't be wrong without the lethal force. But in combination, they are both wrong, because in that situation the printing becomes stealing.

That's completely ludicrous. So if I rape you, it was wrong for me to have grown a penis?

[johnrocks]

I oppose ALL foreign aid.

[erowe1]

In the time libertarians debate on whether helping the Haitians with government money or not more sensible people are just donating their time, money and supplies. This is a time for action. Does it really matter? This is helping your neighbor clean up after a disaster. Arguing over who is more principled and has the highest moral standards is ridiculous. Desire trumps ethics and morals on an individual basis daily. That is the real reason for government.

What better occasion is there to speak out against some immoral government action than a time when just such an action is all over the news?

It's not like taking this occasion to speak truth somehow cancels out whatever other actions we as individuals should take in response to the earthquake.

[Scofield]

On principle, I do not agree with the United States giving aid to other nations.

However, you won't find me protesting this donation to Haiti. While it is unconstitutional to use tax dollars in this fashion, this is one of the few things that I can look the other way on.

However, what is telling is that people think we must have taxation in order to fund domestic welfare programs, because we are heartless bastards and don't help one another and can't be trusted to donate from our own pockets. Yet, on Wednesday, the American people donated a single day record of $3Million to Haiti via mobile text messaging services.

[MN Patriot]

If our government were libertarian, and taxes voluntary (or at least minimal to the greatest extent possible), perhaps the government could have a voluntary foreign aid emergency fund. Only voluntary donations for the government to use to help in situations like these.
Just an idea...

[erowe1]

Whaaaaaaat???? You're arguing that if I never choose a certain action, then the action is impossible?
No.


The US government could operate on a voluntary basis. The fact that it hasn't and probably won't for the foreseeable future doesn't mean it can't.

The government doing something on a voluntary basis is not what we are debating here. I'm all for individuals voluntarily helping the Haitians. But taxpayers have not been asked if they wish to do that. They're being forced to.

[rp08orbust]

On principle, I do not agree with the United States giving aid to other nations.

However, you won't find me protesting this donation to Haiti. While it is unconstitutional to use tax dollars in this fashion, this is one of the few things that I can look the other way on.

Or you can look more carefully at libertarian ethics and clarify for yourself where the actual crimes of statism are, and discover that doling out fiat money is not one of them.

[Mini-Me]

Well this is big change of subject--it's about punishment for the crime of statism, as Walter Block would describe it. Those guilty of enforcing laws contrary to nature/the non-aggression axiom should be fined, jailed, etc. Those operating the Federal Reserve's printing presses, on the other hand, have committed no aggression against anyone, if pressing the "copy" button is all they've done. There is no logic in prohibiting person A from continuing to press the copy button just because person B has been confiscating liberty dollars from person C. It's person B who needs to be punished.

Globalist elites, e.g. David Rockefeller, have personally arrested or shot (most likely) nobody, nor have they physically stolen from anyone. Instead, they have their cronies like politicians do the dirty work...except politicians also don't physically commit these crimes either. They have THEIR cronies do the dirty work: Low-level enforcing officers, mere clock-punch villains who have no idea of the bigger picture outside of their paycheck and "upholding the law." This comes down the the question about justice for the people who hire hitmen...perhaps not exactly, and erowe1 has a stronger argument in the case of, say, Ben Bernanke...but this is certainly something to think about.

[erowe1]

That's completely ludicrous. So if I rape you, it was wrong for me to have grown a penis?

No. And I leave the question of whether it would be right for you to grow a penis or to remain penisless for another time.

But sometimes actions which are not wrong in themselves can be part of a complex of actions, the entirety of which is wrong. For example, pulling a trigger on a gun is not immoral in and of itself. But when doing that in combination with loading it and pointing at someone, the complex of actions including the pulling of the trigger is immoral.

Likewise, using one's property to print whatever one wants is not immoral. But combining that action with legal tender laws so by printing dollars one increases one's own property while decreasing other peoples' property without their consent is immoral. In that case it is not merely the legal tender law that is wrong, but also the theft that occurs when one prints those dollars.

[rp08orbust]

The government doing something on a voluntary basis is not what we are debating here. I'm all for individuals voluntarily helping the Haitians. But taxpayers have not been asked if they wish to do that. They're being forced to.

I guess you're just not able or willing to break the picture down into individual actions the way libertarian ethics requires.

No individual has been forced to send money to Haiti. Rather, many individuals have been forced by many other individuals in government to pay taxes. Those coercive actions are criminal for the coercing individuals.

It so happens that some other individuals in government are sending loot from the US Treasury to Haiti. Those actions in themselves are not criminal. Why? Because there are no identifiable victims.

Sure, the two are connected in one big operation, but the fact that one part is criminal does not make all other parts criminal.

[2young2vote]

I don't want government money going there, but i would much rather see it going there to help the people than going into some politicians pocket.

[Mini-Me]

No. And I leave the question of whether it would be right for you to grow a penis or to remain penisless for another time.

But sometimes actions which are not wrong in themselves can be part of a complex of actions, the entirety of which is wrong. For example, pulling a trigger on a gun is not immoral in and of itself. But when doing that in combination with loading it and pointing at someone, the complex of actions including the pulling of the trigger is immoral.
This also calls to mind a firing squad: Death by firing squad was invented so that none of the shooters would know whose shots hit, thereby reducing their feelings of culpability. If pulling the trigger on a gun is not immoral, but pulling the trigger on a gun while pointing it at someone is, which of the men in a firing squad are culpable?

Consider a four-man firing squad: One shooter deliberately misses hoping everyone else will too, one deliberately misses hoping someone else hits the victim instead, one means to miss but accidentally hits the victim, and one means to hit the victim but misses on accident. Who is culpable? Is everyone else entirely innocent of wrongdoing? What of the person who ordered the firing squad in the first place?

To give another complicated example besides this and the hitman situation, how about the "accidental hitman" situation: A man asks a service technician to install a specific CD player in his "friend's" car as a surprise gift. The technician does so...but the CD player is actually a bomb, and it kills its victim. Who is most culpable?

None of these situations are one-to-one parallels with the copy-button-pusher, but they should give some food for thought when it comes to the general separability of actions contributing to a crime.



Likewise, using one's property to print whatever one wants is not immoral. But combining that action with legal tender laws so by printing dollars one increases one's own property while decreasing other peoples' property without their consent is immoral. In that case it is not merely the legal tender law that is wrong, but also the theft that occurs when one prints those dollars.

[erowe1]

I guess you're just not able or willing to break the picture down into individual actions the way libertarian ethics requires.
That's possible. And I really don't care whether my beliefs adhere to some so-called "libertarian ethics". So that would be fine with me if it were true. But it's also possible that the actions which you think are separable actually aren't.



No individual has been forced to send money to Haiti.

Yes. All American taxpayers and holders of the US dollar are being forced to send money to Haiti. This became true the minute the federal government stole that money from us by way of spending it on aid for Haiti. That spending isn't something separate from the tax which funds it, it is one and the same thing. The moment they spent that money, it came into existence by way of theft. The only way they could have not stolen it was by not spending it.

[Dianne]

I don't want government money going there, but i would much rather see it going there to help the people than going into some politicians pocket.


Well I feel 95% confident that 5% of the money will make it to the people; and the other 95% will line the government owned pockets of corporate greed. Reminds me of Dick Cheney's Halliburton in which a 75 cent aluminum ashtray cost the taxpayer over $90. This is a great opportunity for Obama and friends to line more pockets of their friends, with very little real help hitting the streats in Haiti. Damn... doesn't Obama still have a half brother that lives on $7.00 per month in Africa?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Throw money at them after the fact - no.

Sending people and supplies now I view as Constitutional and very beneficial. Here's why:

From a military and disaster relief/rescue/medical perspective - you can't buy training that good! It will help tremendously the next time an earthquake or other disaster hits the US. Falls under the defense mission.

From a diplomacy perspective - it builds good will with other countries.

-t