Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00333)

Michael wrote:

>Is it really government's
>job to take money from those who earn it and to give
>it to those that don't?

Although I loathe people that answer a question with a question, in this
case I am forced.  Why, Michael, do you, as a libertarian, automatically
assume that the government is taking money from those who earn it and give
it to those that "don't?"  I mean, how do you know these people do not
contribute or give back to society in other ways?  Is earning a wage the
only standard in which a person's contribution to the world is to be judged?

The government uses everyone's taxes to house, feed, and clothe many people
who are UNABLE to work - mothers with small children, the handicapped, the
mentally retarded, the unemployed, the laid-off, the down-sized, the
physically disabled, foster children, etc.  MOST people on "welfare" have
very legitimate reasons to be there.   The media plays up certain cases of
"welfare fraud," it makes dramatic news, incites emotion, and targets
certain groups of people as the cause of society's ills - people believe it
because they do not have the time, nor care enough, to research the facts
and statistics themselves, and then scream about wanting to end the
programs.

>Worse, is it government's job to take
>money from people who earn it who would rather pay, as in my case,
>for my children's eduation or my wife's medical bills (she has MS)
>than to have it spent for a new sports stadium? (even if it would be for
>the Minnesota Vikings :-)

First of all, sports stadiums are usually LOCAL government issues, not
national (which is the source of most "welfare").  In addition, most sports
arenas and such are put to local vote - it is rare for a city or local
government to build a sports stadium without public input.  Anyway, no
liberal I know of, including myself, would ever approve of money being
taken out of medical or eduational funds to build a sports stadium.

Secondly, your wife deserves and should be eligible for disability income
from the government - which could help with the enormous medical bills.  I
know that MS qualifies.  Your case, and many others, are prime examples why
health care should be a right, not a privilege - it should be subsidized so
people do not go broke because someone in their family becomes ill.

Thirdly, your reaction that your money is better served staying in your own
family is the reason I doubt the favorite libertarian prediction that
private donations will come pouring in should government stop "welfare."
People will often find reasons, valid and otherwise, why they should NOT
donate to "welfare" charities.

>The question is, who can best decide how to spend the money
>that one earns?

Taxes are necessary - they pay for roads, schools, national parks, legal
issues (environmental pollution), national disaster aid, etc.  We are all
part of each other and interlinked, and we ALL depend on other people's
taxes to make our own lives livable.  Of course, I believe people should be
able to decide what they want to buy with their money, but I think people
should be required to pay taxes as well - there is no way I can think of to
do away with taxes and still have a functioning society.

>I don't think people should starve in the streets
>but as a government subcontractor, I've seen
>literally billions wasted by our federal government. (and I mean WASTED).

I know - but that is not necessarily always the government's fault.  For
example, a government subcontractor at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho built a
building whose walls collapsed not once, not twice, but three times -
injuring two people.  Turns out he used different materials than what he
promised in the contract.   Was it the government or the subcontrator who
wasted tax money having to build walls back up three times?  Fraud works
both ways - a few people on welfare commit fraud, a few subcontractors
commit fraud.  Should we automatically assume that, because fraud has been
discovered in the subcontracting area, that MOST subcontracters are
committing fraud and we should end subcontracting?  Society certainly seems
to approve of that thinking when it comes to those on "welfare."

Kym