[Saf]

I think this is one Libertarians might agree with me on; hence, posted here.

If I lived in a Libertarian state (which, for all my differences, I'd honestly not mind, guys), I would definately donate some of my money to a private organisation that I felt was trustworthy to help in the areas hit by the tsunami. However, I am not doing it living in the United States because I already have - without my consent. My government, already in millions of dollars in debt, has chosen to give away more money that they took from me in the first place.

So is it wrong for me not to give? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, I already "donated" and I won't be giving any more.

[| I, CWAS |]

So is it wrong for me not to give?

What do you mean by wrong? It's your decision, as you said since taxes were taken, and it as a nation you have a voice in deciding to not vote for politicians who use money for foreign causes, when Americans lack basic neccesities.

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=36215

[Todd D.]

You are asking for moral approval from an ideology whose most basic premise is "Live and let live", kind of ironic. It's your choice not to give, frankly I think that it should have been every American's choice to give or not to give, but once again the Government feels that they know what's better for us and spends our money the way that they see fit.

I thouht about the same thing that you did, but at the end of the day, I know that people are dying and that they need more funds very badly. I believe the figure is that the per capita donation is something like 2 dollars. I can do better than that, and I would do better than that.

[strummerlives]

Of all the things in the world to complain about...
you make me sick

[Todd D.]

How dare someone complain about theft. The nerve.

[Garibaldi]

But wouldn't it be harmful to send more than the necessary amount for recovering?