Last time I checked, the government of the United States had promised $350 million dollars to the relief effort in Asia. This is in addition to the manpower* that has been generously diverted to that area, including, as I understand it, the USS Bonhomme Richard, the ship that Pablo Paredes refused to board because he didn’t want to ruin anyone’s life. I’m sure that his thank you cards from various Indonesian residents are going to be bogging down the U.S. Post Office any day now.

Are these donations sufficient? Is the United States Government morally obligated to give and do more for the victims of this tragedy?

Answers: I doubt it, and no.

Don’t get me wrong. As an individual, I feel that every person has an obligation to do as much as possible for his fellow man. Those affected by this tragedy need our help, and we as individuals should be giving generously to help those less fortunate than us (victims of the tsunami and others). If you’re still looking for a way to help out, let me once again point out Captain Quarters’ World Relief Day.

So, why shouldn’t the government be expected to give and do more? The government’s obligations aren’t ethical in nature. We need a government to provide order and security to the lives of its citizens. The government is not a moral entity.

The money that our government gives isn’t generated from thin air. It comes from tax money — money that belongs to the individual citizens of the nation and that is taken by the government so the government can provide for the order and security of its people. In other words, when the government gives to charity, it is taking money from the populace to do so. The government is forcing people to give to charity.

Charitable giving is a Christian value. We are commanded many times to give to those in need. Christ told us that a failure to help those in need was the same as if we had turned our back on Him when He needed help.

Admittedly, charitable giving isn’t limited to Christians. There are a good many people who give to charities who aren’t Christian, but forced government charity is, in essence, no different from forced Church attendance or forced observance of Christmas as a Holy Day (instead of just a holiday).

Government charity (at home or abroad) for moral reasons is, in my opinion, legally questionable, especially if one also holds to the idea that the government should never enforce moral issues. A solid case can be made for the government’s actions on a political basis, but as Captain Ed points out, if you expect our generosity to have a serious impact on the way the world sees us, “Don’t Get Your Hopes Up“.

I’m proud of our country. I’m proud of every single dollar sent to help in the aftermath of this tragedy, whether it’s redirected tax money or individual donations. But I’m sick of hearing people who were so righteous earlier this year complaining about “moral values” electing George W. Bush (who, you know, shouldn’t push his moral values on us) and then turn around and bash him for not pushing their moral values as well as he should.

——

*Quick note for anyone who suggests that the manpower isn’t a notable donation: Try the following experiment.

1. Build a sandcastle.
2. Destroy the sand castle with a waterhose.
3. Throw money at the sandcastle.

If your sandcastle rebuilds itself without the addition of manpower, then I will apologize and admit that the donation of U.S. military manpower is insignificant.

And, for those who might be laughing that “Bush the idiot” is sending aircraft carriers to help with a disaster of this nature, go read this post by Varifrank.