There has been a lot of debate lately about privatization. From food service to ISU’s “free” Internet access, the topic has been filling up the pages of the Daily with flaming letters. I’m here to add a log to that fire.

The fundamental, unstated premise making all this bickering possible is: “We have a right to government aid.” It is that premise which I challenge as not only impractical, but immoral. The Declaration of Independence reads, “… to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men …” The only proper function of government is the protection of individual rights. Any alleged “right” which necessitates the violation of somebody else’s rights is not and cannot be a right.

What is the nature of social programs? Be they for the students or the elderly or the poor or the disabled, they all share a common thread: the redistribution of wealth by the government. But the government is not a productive entity. Its only source of wealth is what is held by its citizens. The more money it spends, the more money it must take in. The more it gives to one group of people, the more it must take from another. This is a simple fact of economics: There are no free lunches. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

The government must get its money from its citizens — voluntarily or by taxation. In practice, it comes from taxation. (It is absurd to expect voluntary contributions from people already strangled by the tax system.) But what if the taxpayer objects to where their money is being spent? What if they would rather see more money go toward Project A than to Project X? Or what if they would rather keep their money for themselves and spend it as they see fit? The answer is: they are not allowed. They are forced to pay taxes, under threat of imprisonment. What of the taxpayer’s right to his property, to keep his production and use it as he sees fit, in the pursuit of his own happiness? A “right to government aid” is incompatible with these things. A person who is forced to work for the benefit of others without his consent, is a rightless slave.

This point is lost upon those who clamor for social programs to benefit the “needy.” They teach us that our first moral duty is to serve others. They teach us that it is better to give than to receive. They teach us that we are our brother’s keeper. They teach us not to be selfish. They praise those who distribute things which they did not produce and could not equal, while denouncing the selfish, productive geniuses whose effort made the gifts possible. It should come as no surprise that they are advocates of slavery.

Observe some of their more prominent evasions: It is grotesque to type a letter denouncing capitalism on a computer which only capitalism made inexpensive enough for you to use. It is obscene to smear Big Business on that same computer, blanking out the knowledge that it was IBM that provided it to you. It is a contradiction to parade for equality by demanding special favors. It is vicious to attempt to combat racism by institutionalizing it. The icing on the cake is that they propose to liberate the “underprivileged” from “oppressive” private businesses by enslaving everybody under the unyielding yoke of an all-powerful state.

It is not government that can fix the problems of the country today. It is the government that has caused our problems. The solution is to assert the economic and moral superiority of laissez-faire capitalism over the deadly mixture of government intervention we have today. Capitalist is the only system which respects individual rights, because it is the only system which banishes the use of force. Voluntary, uncoerced agreements are never violations of rights. Everybody has a right to their life, to their liberty, to their property, and the pursuit of their own selfish happiness. Not the right to be given those things from others at the point of a gun, which would be a violation of their rights, but the freedom to pursue them for themselves. That is the original, noble, and moral American system.

The answers to questions of privatization should be clear.

Kyle Markley

Sophomore

Computer Science

Treasurer, Objectivists at ISU