update: They removed the original article, but this is the internet and you can't get rid of things that easily.

This pisses me off. (via superfrankenstein)

Summing up the content, the US government (although all arguements could be applied to just about any government) should not be giving out disaster relief, although it's quite all right for private individuals and organizations to do so. Why? Because the government's money is not the government's to give.

Which is bullshit. The government can do what it damn well pleases with the money.

The thing the author, David Holcberg, misses is that government spending is approved by the people implicitly, through the election of those politicians he rails against. The people making these decisions are there to represent the interests of the people residing in a particular geographic area. If they are not going to approve of some measure, then it is the MPs/Congressman/whatever's JOB to vote against that measure. If you don't like it - protest. Express your disagreement, keeping in mind this opens you up for rebuttals. Next time around, vote for someone who will look after your interests the way you want them to, because if your representative has a history of supporting what you don't like, clearly they are not the person who should be representing you. He also throws up a smokescreen concerning whom the aid is going to, using the nebulous "enemies of the United States" and mentioning aid to North Korea and Palestine under Clinton and Bush.

The second point he makes is that politicians get away with it because they have altruism on their side. Which is true. But the government's decision is not your decision. While the government represents you, it also represents everyone else - if what is being done is against your values, whatever they are, then tough - it's being done because it is along the lines of most people's values. Feel free to disagree, and if you can, demonstrate that most people disagree.

(aside: If you don't vote, can you still complain about the government? Yes, of course. Just because you did not vote does not abrogate a politician's job of representing you.)

This quote sums up his arguement: "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?" This sentence reads to me like "That's MY money! Don't you DARE spend it on people who are dying!" I'm almost definitely reading in to this a tone that isn't there, but the "don't you DARE do such-and-such" arguement holds little water with me.

Fucking "rational self-interest."