Comments on: Auschwitz Entrance Sign Stolen. Pelosi and Reid Have Alibis, So Don’t Even Ask.

By: Indentured Servant G

Indentured Servant G — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:54:50 +0000

That wasn't a "Rockwellian" article…it was Davy Crocket hosted on LRC. And the view expressed in that article on the nature of our Constitutional government expresses precisely what the founders had in mind.

It's not yours to give. It's as simple as that. If you can make an argument for redistributing our wealth to a museum in Poland, then why are you and other conservatives getting upset about anything that Obama does? You aren't against tax and spend in principle…just the who is dividing the spoils and to whom.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:05:03 +0000

I never said it was the only way, merely an incredibly economic way.

However, I'm not out to make a utilitarian argument, though I believe I made a darned good one to refute yours. I'm not going to take a lecture from a Lew Rockwell site article on the principle of taxation and spending. I grok the subject plenty well enough, thank you.

You can't possibly quantify the value of keeping open a museum of the Holocaust on the dead heart of that horror and more than you can quantify the value of having a memorial fo the Pearl Harbor attack on the remains of the USS Arizona. The memorial there delivers the "never again" message more powerfully than it would anywhere else in the universe. For that reason, and only for that reason, we should do what we must to ensure it remains.

Some things transcend Rockwellian practicality. Symbolism matters. The Founders understood that as well, by the way.

By: Indentured Servant G

Indentured Servant G — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:07:28 +0000

But your premise is false.

It has not been demonstrated that this museum is the only way to ensure "never again"…that claim is dubious at best.

And Your assertion that $60 million is cheap compared to what we'd pay if "never again" is ignored is a false dichotomy and is a typical tactic of the left–like "if we don't spend XXX on sex education and free birth control we'll pay for it later with teen pregnancies and welfare!"

In any case, if people think it is a worthy endeavor, they will endorse it with their dollars. That which does not attract funds, clearly does not have popular support. If that is the case–why should tax dollars be sent towards something that does not have popular support?

I highly recommend you read "Not Yours To Give"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:48:53 +0000

Indeed, but I believe there is a compelling national interest in making sure the principle of "never again" is given its full due and I don't think that $60 million is too dear a price. Considering what we will spend when it is ignored again, it's a bargain.

By: Indentured Servant G

Indentured Servant G — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:37:00 +0000

PS…I think the founders intended our government to stay within constitutional limits and anything not explicitly mentioned was left to the states…so no…I don't know of any reasonable uses of government power that aren't in the constitution. On the contrary, I find our government's abandonment of limited government completely unreasonable.

By: Indentured Servant G

Indentured Servant G — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:17:42 +0000

KD—is there a dollar amount that you think might be enough? Or is the German treasury expected to be a bottomless pit favoring one group of victims?

Jimmie—I think conservatives who advocate for such spending programs aren't really conservative at all…in principle the only difference between them and lefties is who is dividing the spoils. It is so easy to be generous with other peoples money.

I ask you—where does it end? It is not conservative to give away borrowed money. Our country is bankrupt because of such misguided largesse. And I have to disagree that money spent on a museum in Poland is in our national interest at all.

I don't recall ever hearing the left use the argument that our priorities are at home…if anything, no one loves nation building and foreign aid more than a lefty. They are the original guns & butter party.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:43:06 +0000

I don't buy the "our priorities are at home" stuff, and I think you know that. It's a weak argument when the left uses and it doesn't suit a conservative purpose well either.

I happen to believe the Holocaust is an event that it is in our best interest to help the world remember. You only have to look around to see how easily it has been forgotten, even by our own leaders. "Never Again" is a principle worth spending our tax dollars on (mine included). I get that you don't agree. However, you know as well as I do that something need not be written explicitly in the Constitution to be a proper and reasonable use of our Government's power. Perhaps our spending a relative pittance now will help prevent us from spending far more, and thousands of American lives in another war to end a genocide. Small investment with large dividends.

By: KD

KD — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:21:35 +0000

IndenturedServantGirl: Thanks, my breathing is just fine. My point is that while there are still survivors living, I do believe that Germany (as well as the former Soviet Union, but we won't get into that now) does owe them something. You say it is unjust to expect Germans today, most of whom were not even born yet, to pay for crimes of the past. Well, I wasn't born during the war, but my parents and grandparents were in it. As long as they are alive, they continue to live with the war's trauma. Whether you like to believe it or not, this trauma does have some affect on families lives. As their progeny, we hold a responsibility to their health and welfare. Because of the survivors horrific experiences, it is left up to individual families to deal with. Why should we have to deal with it alone? I feel strongly that the responsibility should be shared by the (former) aggressors, including the now elderly who may or may not have been directly involved and for the time being, their progeny. Now, I am not suggesting financial reparations on survivors progeny. But as long as these survivors are still alive, I feel they are owed much more from the aggressors.