Radical Libertarianism

Former Finance Chief Antonio R. Cabrera was in the news again yesterday, as the Attorney General’s office pressed for his accounting of the $6 he spent at Winchell’s, among other extravagant purchases made at taxpayer expense. Mr. Cabrera apparently made some critical mistakes. He should not have used taxpayer funds for expensive Italian shoes. This is true. All reasonable people will agree that such government purchases were clearly improper. Taxpayer funds should not be diverted toward the personal expenses of government officials.

At the same time, and by the same reasoning, we should also agree that taxpayer funds should not be expended for the benefit of a select group of citizens (special interests). Why is it wrong for Mr. Cabrera to use our tax dollars to buy himself designer Italian shoes when it is perfectly all right for a select group of senior citizens to enjoy their own government-constructed aging center? In other words, why is it wrong when a specific individual benefits and not wrong when a certain group of people enjoy similar benefits?

I believe it was Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin who said, “Kill one man and it is a murder; kill millions and it becomes a statistic.” Adolf Hitler may have also articulated a similar idea: “kill one man and you are a vile, lowly criminal; kill a million and you are a great man.” Numbers make all the difference in the world.

One might make the same statement about armed robbery. If you mug one man, you commit the simple crime of robbery. You have a robbery on your hands. You are a vulgar, wretched criminal, to be despised. You should be incarcerated. But rob a million men–rob millions–and you now have a sophisticated system of taxation. You are a revered national hero–a regular Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a social reformer).

To jingoistic, nationalistic patriots, all traitors should be executed for their crimes against the state–for treason. This is an unpardonable betrayal against the collective. The execution of the Rosenberg atomic spies in the 1950s, for example, is regarded as a service of justice. Yet, when an individual kills their spouse for adultery–a personal betrayal–they call it murder, a severe crime. In the personal betrayal case, an individual cannot own another individual. In the collective betrayal case, a group of individuals can own–and can claim the life of–a single individual. The group often makes everything all right.

Mr. Cabrera cannot take part of my tax dollars and use it to buy himself an Italian suit or a Rolex watch. But Representatives X, Y, and Z can take my tax dollars and use it to build a youth center for a specific portion of the population without my explicit consent. Unless one accepts the premise that an individual has no right to his life and exists only to serve others, the preceding scenarios must be regarded as wrong, evil, and utterly contemptible.