As it did last fall, rain drenches New Hampshire to the point of flooding, and, as they did last fall, NH politicians and federal "officials" promise to save the day with government assistance (ie money that has already been taken from us without our direct approval, or money that will be borrowed with the promise of repayment with our tax Dollars).

We rarely question this paradigm. When Representative Dan Eaton proposed spending $4 million of other peoples' money to buy outright the homes of flood victims in Alstead, his idea was met with resounding approval.

It shows we care, they said. It shows the best of NH government in action.

This is incorrect, for three reasons.

First, charity is based on volition. Without choice, one does not show his own morals or ethics. To stipulate that a majority decision in a house of government, which was elected by a majority of those who even bothered to vote, in any way indicates that the people of a state "care" is fallacious. Only when those indiviuals freely donate their own money, to the causes they choose, is charity shown. If the citizens were given no real chice, how can one say that "New Hampshire cares"?

Second, we do not form governments to protect us against natural threats, only threats from others. Over the years, Americans have become so accustomed to the government stepping in when there is a natural disaster, that we expect it to do so, be it on the federal level or the state level. In our current water crisis, Governor John Lynch is calling out the Guard to work on protecting citizens from flooding, and will undoubtedly (as of this writing he has yet to do so) ask for federal assistance. Under a strict enterpretation of the philisophy of natural rights upon which our state and federal governments were based, it is illegitimate for the government to do anything but protect us from threats by others. Hence, it would be legitimate to call out the Guard to keep order, and uphold laws against looting, violent crime, etc., but not to throw down sand bags and build levvies. This may strike some people as unbelievable, or cold-hearted. But strictly speaking, all government services are derived from seizure of private tax money, and if we assume that the government exists to help protect us against natural phenomena, then we must ask ourselves: where does it stop? Is it only through the syphon of politicians' decisions that we create parameters about which kinds of natural problems we take money from others to help solve? Flooding is typically seen as something demanding state aid, but how much flooding? What about sun? Dry conditions? What about wind? What about viruses? How dangerous do they have to be for us to say, "Yes, please force my nieghbor to pay for my other neighbor's protection against this natural threat"? (And by the way, anarchists have a valid argument when they ask why the government ought to take money from people in order to protect them from having their money taken from people -- ie for police protecftion. A bit of a QED there for even people who support limited government. The anarchist perspective is a valuable one.)

Finally, by getting the government involved in protecting us from naturally occuring threats, we undermine society's ability to protect itself. Each time we take money from people, assuming that by putting it through the government machine and handing it out to whomever the government deems worthy, we reduce by a certain degree the individual's ability and incentive to take care of himself. This leads to a self-perpetuating cycle, where the people neither have all the means they should have, nor the personal initiative they once had, to take care of themselves, because government has already stepped on their ability to do so.