Dan McLaughlin

Voices For Freedom Read Columns Daniel McLaughlin
To Home Page Latest Newsletter Column Archives Click to get these columns for your local paper	Post Comments Below © 2007 Daniel J. McLaughlin Government Gifts We constantly hear politicians trumpeting the mounds of government money they procure for local communities, as though that is a wonderful thing. Another term for it is “pork barrel spending”. Pork is a derogatory term, and politicians should be embarrassed when they promote it, rather than heralding each new payload of dollars used to buy votes. The money that they give in grants and programs for local communities is money that they have taken from others. It is the classic case of what is seen and what is not seen. The politician takes credit for a grant for this museum and funding for that local project. He or she is right that there will be a positive local effect. The influx of money will help boost the local economy. The money will be used for a building project which will, perhaps, use local contractors. The project will hopefully increase employment in the local community and have a positive effect on local businesses, as the money is spent on local goods and services. That is what is seen. What is not seen is that a $100,000 grant given to a museum from the government has to come from someone else’s pocket. There is no other way. All of the money that government uses in it’s supposed benevolence and generosity comes from confiscation of other people’s money. That $100,000 is no longer available for construction projects, employment and operations of organizations in other localities. Even when the receiver of the money is a charitable organization or a worthy cause, charity of government comes only at the expense of private charity, in every instance. The money is no longer available for the original owner to give to charity or to pay wages or buy supplies. Community A may be selfish and say that they still want the cash, even if it was taken from someone else. What they don’t realize is that community B is also selfish, and doesn’t mind using money confiscated from community A. The truth is that everyone’s bill is ultimately paid through higher taxes, taxes that come from the pockets of every local business and individual, money that cannot be used by the individual in his own community as he sees fit. Instead, it goes to pet projects that may or may not benefit any of the taxpayers. It is not merely a matter of the benefits of one location canceling the benefits to another. If that was the case, it would be bad enough. It would still mean stealing money from one or many localities to the benefit of another. In reality, the taking of money from one portion of the population must be greater than the amount given to the other. Because of the well recognized gross inefficiency of government, a much higher amount needs to be collected in order to produce the enforced charity. The excess amount collected is sloughed off for operating the government. It may be argued that that extra money collected by government must be spent somewhere in the economy, and in so doing, the economy, as a whole, benefits from the confiscation. That is indeed the case, if you look at only one side of the equation. Again, the money collected is not available for the original owners to spend. Typically, when transactions occur between two private parties, it is because productive activities have created value. The seller has an item or service that the buyer values more than the items or services he or she has to trade for it, typically in the form of money. With each transaction, value is created, both parties are better off than they were before the trade. When confiscation takes place, whether the thieves are public or private, value is taken with no value given in return. It is plausible that certain government services are valuable and must be paid for by all taxpayers. These may include military services and the court system. It is not plausible that taking of money from one person to give to another is a valuable service to the victim of the taking. That being the case, the bulk of all modern government activity is taking value from someone without giving value to that person in return. It is morally wrong to take from someone without giving value in return, but it is also economically counter productive. The next time you hear politicians bragging about bringing home the bacon, remind them that many unfortunate pigs paid dearly for it.
Contact us Privacy Policy Comments
Daniel Mclaughlin Copyright © 2006 [Daniel McLaughlin]. All rights reserved. Revised: 01/06/08

Voices For Freedom

Read Columns

Daniel McLaughlin

To Home Page

Latest Newsletter

Column Archives

Click to get these columns for your local paper

Post Comments Below

Government Gifts

We constantly hear politicians trumpeting the mounds of government money they procure for local communities, as though that is a wonderful thing. Another term for it is “pork barrel spending”. Pork is a derogatory term, and politicians should be embarrassed when they promote it, rather than heralding each new payload of dollars used to buy votes.

The money that they give in grants and programs for local communities is money that they have taken from others. It is the classic case of what is seen and what is not seen. The politician takes credit for a grant for this museum and funding for that local project. He or she is right that there will be a positive local effect. The influx of money will help boost the local economy. The money will be used for a building project which will, perhaps, use local contractors. The project will hopefully increase employment in the local community and have a positive effect on local businesses, as the money is spent on local goods and services. That is what is seen.

What is not seen is that a $100,000 grant given to a museum from the government has to come from someone else’s pocket. There is no other way. All of the money that government uses in it’s supposed benevolence and generosity comes from confiscation of other people’s money. That $100,000 is no longer available for construction projects, employment and operations of organizations in other localities. Even when the receiver of the money is a charitable organization or a worthy cause, charity of government comes only at the expense of private charity, in every instance. The money is no longer available for the original owner to give to charity or to pay wages or buy supplies.

Community A may be selfish and say that they still want the cash, even if it was taken from someone else. What they don’t realize is that community B is also selfish, and doesn’t mind using money confiscated from community A. The truth is that everyone’s bill is ultimately paid through higher taxes, taxes that come from the pockets of every local business and individual, money that cannot be used by the individual in his own community as he sees fit. Instead, it goes to pet projects that may or may not benefit any of the taxpayers.

It is not merely a matter of the benefits of one location canceling the benefits to another. If that was the case, it would be bad enough. It would still mean stealing money from one or many localities to the benefit of another. In reality, the taking of money from one portion of the population must be greater than the amount given to the other. Because of the well recognized gross inefficiency of government, a much higher amount needs to be collected in order to produce the enforced charity. The excess amount collected is sloughed off for operating the government.

It may be argued that that extra money collected by government must be spent somewhere in the economy, and in so doing, the economy, as a whole, benefits from the confiscation. That is indeed the case, if you look at only one side of the equation. Again, the money collected is not available for the original owners to spend.

Typically, when transactions occur between two private parties, it is because productive activities have created value. The seller has an item or service that the buyer values more than the items or services he or she has to trade for it, typically in the form of money. With each transaction, value is created, both parties are better off than they were before the trade.

When confiscation takes place, whether the thieves are public or private, value is taken with no value given in return. It is plausible that certain government services are valuable and must be paid for by all taxpayers. These may include military services and the court system. It is not plausible that taking of money from one person to give to another is a valuable service to the victim of the taking. That being the case, the bulk of all modern government activity is taking value from someone without giving value to that person in return.

It is morally wrong to take from someone without giving value in return, but it is also economically counter productive. The next time you hear politicians bragging about bringing home the bacon, remind them that many unfortunate pigs paid dearly for it.

Hit Counter