April 3, 2025
The county of Burma or Myanmar has seen its share of natural disasters. A devasting cyclone in 2008 killed tens of thousands of people and left hundreds of thousands more homeless. To make things worse, the country has suffered from internal conflict for 50 years, and is currently in the midst of a civil war.
Last month it was a devasting 7.7 earthquake that hit Myanmar. Over 2,000 people are confirmed dead, thousands are injured, and countless numbers of people are still buried.
The United States has pledged $2 million in aid. The Trump administration has been criticized for not responding fast enough because of cuts to USAID. Meanwhile, China has scored a public relations win by sending 400 Chinese personnel and providing $14 million in aid.
Just what does this mean that the United States has pledged $2 million in aid? I don't recall pledging to send money to Myanmar, and neither do any of my family or friends. I also don't recall pledging to send money to the federal government to send to Myanmar, and neither do any of my family or friends.
It is the U.S. government that has pledged the $2 million. And where did the U.S. government get the $2 million it will send to Myanmar? There are only two possibilities. The federal government can simply print the money or it can take the money out of the wallets, pockets, and purses of Americans in the form of taxes. There are no other options. The federal government has no money of its own unless it sells some of the land or assets it owns.
But without U.S. aid, won't more people fail to be rescued in Myanmar? Won't more people be homeless? Won't more people suffer? Won't more children get sick or starve? Won't more people die?
Perhaps.
But that is not the point. The point is simply this: Should the U.S. government be taking money from Americans and using it for relief efforts in Myanmar?
Of course not. Disaster relief is just as Illegitimate as foreign aid.
There was a time in this country when it was recognized to be improper for the federal government to provide humanitarian relief even within the United States.
In 1887, President Grover Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill to appropriate $10,000 for the purchase of seed grain for some farmers in Texas who had lost their crops due to a drought. Cleveland stated in his veto message:
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.
When Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, Congressman (and future president) James Madison objected, saying: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Congressman Davy Crockett explained his opposition to a congressional attempt to help the widow of a naval officer: "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
If it is unconstitutional for the federal government to provide disaster relief to Americans, then it is certainly even more unconstitutional for the federal government to provide disaster relief to foreigners or their governments. Although domestic relief is clearly an illegitimate purpose of the federal government, foreign relief is even more so. I would certainly rather see American taxpayer money go to Americans than to foreigners. After all, Americans are the ones paying the taxes.
This doesn't mean that I dislike foreigners or wish them ill will. It just means that I believe in the Constitution, limited government, federalism, property rights, and individual freedom.
The case of Myanmar is actually a test of one's commitment to the freedom philosophy. A free society includes the freedom to be unconcerned, insensitive, or stingy.
Although any American is certainly welcome to contribute to the relief effort in Myanmar, no one should be forced to do so via his taxes or otherwise. There is no doubt in my mind that Americans would give liberally to alleviate the suffering of the people of Myanmar if the federal government just did nothing. But whether Americans give or don't give, it is still the case that it should be the decision of each individual American. All charity and relief-domestic or foreign-should be private and voluntary.