Private Philanthropy vs. Public Taxation

Recently, Warren Buffet donated $30 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (read about it here). This is an amazing feat in itself, but to me, it serves to make a larger point about philanthropy (as does the Gates Foundation itself).

Liberals argue that we MUST tax more and more because Capitalism breeds selfishness and glorification of the individual. How, they ask, can you expect a system that rewards individualism and greed and the amassing of wealth to also take care of the needy? How, finally, can you logically believe that people will merely GIVE money to those who need it when they earned it through selfish methods?

The liberal argument assumes that a person is incapable of critically dividing his life's pursuits intellectually, spiritually, and ethically. A cursory glance at the football stadium would prove them wrong, where players strive to win by physical force, only to shake hands and share a beer afterwards.

Moreover, counter-evidence from my own years is plentiful. When I was growing up in Tyler, TX, one of the most expensive gifts ever given to our church's youth group, an air-conditioned bus for travel to various youth outings, was donated by one of the shrewdest businessmen in our congregation. He delighted in succeeding in the marketplace so as to help his church financially.

The conservative arguement is simple: my money is mine. The government has no moral right to take it from me in order to equalize and redistribute wealth in this country. This fact is not a comment on my selfishness or greediness. But even so, the argument that people would not help the needy on their own falls flat on its face against the examples such as Buffet and Gates.

One final note: some will say "You can't hold up Buffet and the Gates and expect us to believe they're representative examples. They're only three people."


Response: You're exactly right. Just like the liberals aren't allowed to interview and highlight Joe New Orleans to prove that all poor people are being ignored.

Political Parties and Problem Solving

I would like to broadly paint an illustration that outlines some political differences as I see them. I welcome your comments to further the discussion.


You would be hard pressed to find one single Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian who would deny that homelessness is a problem in America. A person who does not have a place to sleep out of the elements, decent food to eat, and clean water is tragic. We all agree that this situation should not be. However, we differ on how to solve the problem.

In general, Democrats believe we should equalize wealth to solve the problem; we should pass legislation that takes money from those who have it and give it to those who don’t—through government programs and public channels. This will enable the homeless person to receive the food, clothing, and shelter.

In general, Republicans believe we should pass legislation to stimulate the economy in order to make the homeless person more able to find a job to help himself. As well, we should take some money from those who have it and give it to private and religious channels that already help the poor and needy. This will enable the homeless person to receive food, clothing, and shelter until he can provide for himself through employment.

In general, Libertarians believe that no legislation whatsoever should be passed that interferes with Free Market Capitalism; the government should not pass legislation at all that moves money from one person to the next. Individuals who feel passionately about the plight of the homeless should create a private group, solicit private donations, and distribute the funds as they see fit. This is currently what churches and private charities do. Such organizations that succeed according to their purposes will grow and flourish because donors will continue to give; those that are not successful will fail.

It is my argument that the Libertarian method is the best and most efficient way to handle the problem of the homeless person on the street. The Democratic method is wrong because, among other reasons, it removes the incentive for an entrepreneur to start a business. Why should I take the financial risk to enter the market if the government sits ready to take away a larger and larger percentage of my profits to redistribute as it sees fit? And if business stops, the whole economic wheel stops turning, and America is left with nothing. This short-sightedness is the Democratic party’s greatest failing, in my opinion; they simply cannot see the long-term consequences of their policies.

The Republican position is also wrong, because, although the creation of jobs is a wise long-term practice, funding immediate felt needs and job-training of needy citizens through private agenda-driven programs through taxation is inefficient and tainted—even if the taxpayers agree with the agendas (e.g, Christian organizations).

Now, when I explain this in a public place, I get the following objections; my answers immediately follow.

1. Look around at all the homeless people!! What we need is to tax MORE, not LESS.

Response: Yes, look around. The government currently takes 15-45% of your net income and they STILL have not solved the problem of homelessness through government programs. Isn’t it time to admit failure and promote a more efficient system?

2. But if you don’t redistribute wealth, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Response: First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with gaining wealth; it’s what Free Market Capitalism is based on. Second of all, that accusation does not take into account the fact that many people are succeeding as “middle class” ; not every person who is “not rich” is “poor.” Finally, wealthy people can give to the private charities and churches of their choice exponentially more efficiently than the government can while serving as middle man.

3. But without government legislation, people would selfishly hold on to their money and let the homeless person die in the street.

Response: First and most importantly, it is not the government’s right to assume that I’m selfish and to proactively create a bumbling, grossly inefficient system that redistributes my assets by force. But the evidence is not on your side: when Katrina and Rita hit, for example, people left their jobs and fled by the thousands to help out their fellow man, with no compensation. Money and goods poured in from the private sector, as well as from the government, though recent research is showing the incredible waste of the latter. Don’t tell me people don’t care; I’m not buying it.

4. But the government is a representative government; you voted in those congressmen, senators, and city councilmen who tax you the way you hate.

Response: This is the only argument that stands, and does so only if you subtract real and actual corruption. And this is why it’s IMPERATIVE that you seriously consider your party affiliation when the time comes to vote. Please consider an independent party that does not first seek to pay the salaries of friends and family to perpetuate self-interest.

Abilene City Council and taxation

Fact Number One

I doubt I will enumerate each fact as we go, but I wanted to start this way as we get rolling. I want to give my readers facts that they may not know already that might influence them as they think, live, and vote.

A member of the Abilene city council has told me that statistics show Abilene residents pay more per capita in taxation than other cities of our size and relative position. What that says to me is that, of all cities in TX of our size and circumstance, every other city has found ways to exist as a community at less expense. Thus, I would say we are in an "emergency situation." Every moment that we are not reducing spending and finding ways to lower taxes for our citizens is unacceptable.
Moreover, every time the city council votes in a new tax for a new service instead of stopping an existing service to fund a new service, they are commiting an act that is unacceptable; they are worsening an emergency situation.

Here is an example that you may not be aware of: Two years ago, the Abilene city council decided to fund a second position of "Zone Enforcement Officer." The logic went like this: they will charge the taxpayers a fee on their water bills to generate revenue for the salary, auto expense, insurance, and benefits of this second officer for ONE YEAR. After this, the fees generated by this position will suffice to cover such costs and they city can drop the fee.

In the FINAL DRAFT of this legislation, after using the language of "One Year" for months, the city council voted to make this fee PERMANENT--to have it remain indefinitely on our water bills to "generate revenue" for other things.

The purpose of a city council is not to "generate revenues"; its purpose is to find the LEAST EXPENSIVE way to provide a city with its essential infrastructures. How a person interpets that purpose depends on his/her political leanings. You already know much of mine from this new blog.

Welcome

Welcome to my other blog!

My purpose here is to educate and invite discussion on the political front of, first, Abilene, TX, and then the larger citizenship of America. My primary agenda is to promote the Libertarian ideal (for more info, click here). Although inviting political discussion often invokes argumentation, and I believe argumentation can be healthy, my overall goal is NOT merely to argue, but to encourage political freedom and critical thinking among my fellow citizenry. People say that you should never discuss politics with your friends, but I disagree; it may be difficult, but I believe it's very necessary if we're to continue evolving. And if we disagree, that's OK, as long as we learn from each other.

So here we go.