Cambridge, Wisconsin taxpayers forced to donate

[Steve Dake]

From a letter to the Village Board:

Most people are kind hearted enough to want to help out their neighbors when it is needed. This is an admirable quality, and one I personally hope never leaves our culture. It is easy to understand that in times of surplus, individuals as well as municipalities want to give a little extra to help those in need.

We live in a free society. Our freedom is ultimately based on individual rights. I would like to preface my recommendation with a brief allegory:

If a man is walking down our main street and another man forces him to hand over his wallet, we would appropriately label the second man a thief. The thief would not be able to justify his act simply by stating that he was giving the money to what he felt was a good cause. Even if the man being robbed thought it was a good cause, it does not change the fact that a crime had taken place. It is a crime, because the man who was robbed earned his money and has a right to use it in any legal way he chooses. The thief, no matter how altruistic he feels he is, is not justified. He has no right to decide how to use the produce of the man he robbed.

Why am I mentioning this? Because there is very little difference in principle between that scenario and one that we perform every year in the taxing of our citizens for the purpose of funding a good cause which does not represent a vital and direct function to all citizens. In my mind, the primary difference sadly is that the thief has only affected one individual and did not use the law to enforce his act of plunder.

We have included in our budget several items which are each very good, very worthwhile causes. However, I argue that it is not ethical in a free society to force the taxpayers to fund them. Even if you can argue that the majority of the people agree that they are good causes, we have only helped to build the case that a ruling mob should be considered a just form of government. Should 51% of the people decide that they are justified in looting the homes of the other 49%? Of course not! Individual rights are not determined by majority and certainly not by the minority group selected to represent the people.

I believe that we should encourage our citizens to give freely to local charity. I believe that we should come together as a community to donate what we can whenever we can, but it must be done voluntarily.

It is because of the reasons outlined above that I am recommending a complete cut in the funding for the Cambridge food pantry as well as the Senior Citizens and Youth programs.

Again I would like to state clearly, it is not because I feel these are unworthy causes. I believe 100% in their function and their ability to directly affect peoples’ lives in a positive way. I want them to continue and to thrive. But they need to be funded voluntarily by others like myself who believe in their value.

[Steve Dake]

Additionally, individual contributions to charitable organizations are a tax write off which will provide more direct value to the people who personally fund these worthwhile causes. This is a benefit that is not seen when our tax money is used to fund the same organizations by force.

This proposed cut alone will provide one substantial step in staving off a tax increase allowing us to use the extra $11,500 in other areas which are needed and expected by the citizens as a whole.
I realize that this proposal may be seen at first by some as a drastic or unfair measure. But these are tough times, and anyone who is opposed should be equally willing to step up and contribute strongly to these causes voluntarily.

The sad truth is that if no one is willing to fund them voluntarily then how could we ever justify taxing everyone to fund it against their will?

[joe pocco]

Crowface mutha! no more!!!!1