Another reason Libertarians are irrelevant

[wyldwolf]

As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

The United States government, however, should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give.

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?

The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10688&news_iv_ctrl=1021

In other words, the only reason politicians "get away with doling out money" (to those in need)" is that it's the right thing to do... and we shouldn't let them get away with it! :wtf:

[charlie]

1. *Most* are suffering through no fault of their own?

They should produce a list of those who enticed a tsunami into their lives, I'd like to see it.

[atommom]

2. So do they subscribe to the "God's Wrath" theory, then?

I thought Libertarians didn't believe in that sort of thing.

[charlie]

3. Well, they're pretty cultish about Ayn

(In any case, these are Randroids, not Libertarians)

[TreasonousBastard]

4. I love these guys...

it's all about "me" and "mine." As if they made their money in a vacuum.

They go apoplectic when I say that they don't "own" anything, but are merely custodians of property and capital, and have limited rights. and major obligations in their handling of it.

They get really red and have trouble breathing when I mention that government is often the most efficient way to accomplish massive projects.