Opinion piece from the Wausau Daily Herald by Jim Maas

A humanitarian tragedy, more than 1,300 people killed, many of them children -- homes, schools, UN relief facilities, agricultural resources, hospitals, water and sewage infrastructure were destroyed. President Barack Obama promised $900 million to rebuild Gaza following Israel's attack just one year ago. (He did not send American troops to that tragedy.)

In 2010, the situation of Haitian earthquake victims is unbelievably tragic. There is an overwhelming need among the people who have been affected by the natural, not man-made, devastation. What can or should be done to help these people? President Obama said recently that Haiti "must be a priority. This is a situation that calls out for American leadership."

Americans, as always, will respond. Our charitable organizations and church social justice committees are on it. Should our government also be on it? If so, under what authority? The function of our government is to provide the rule of law and protect liberty, not to redistribute our wealth, grant special privileges or interfere with the lives of individuals. The government has nothing of its own -- it must plunder the resources of Americans before redistributing to Americans, Palestinians, Haitians, etc.

If our government uses money from its debt ridden "budget" to help war, earthquake or tsunami victims, does it make all of us "charitable," despite our tax dollars being taken by force?
It is interesting to note that in 1794, the U.S. Congress was faced with this same dilemma, as to what exactly the role of the federal government was in instances such as these -- specifically with Haiti. James Madison, one of our founding fathers, led votes against granting assistance to French refugees from the Haitian revolution.

"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," Madison said. A few decades later, the principle was restated. "We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money," said Rep. David Crockett. Who defends our Constitution that way today?

Should American military forces go to Haiti? The purpose of our military should be to defend the United States against attack or invasion. It isn't to be misused to establish democracy, spread goodwill, change regimes to suit us, serve as peacekeepers, invade other countries that haven't attacked ours or provide humanitarian aid at home or abroad.

Americans are a kind and generous people. We donate millions to various relief efforts and would give even more if our government didn't insist on getting involved in some of the same issues while taking too much from its citizens in taxes.

Philosophically, we object to military interventions in Haiti and elsewhere. However, if the president would redeploy our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to Haiti, he would have my support and could save lives on both sides of the planet.

By the way, did our public and private aid to Gaza make it through the blockade in 2009? If not, why not?
Finally, if there were a disaster where you live, how long are you prepared to survive on your own?
Jim Maas of Rothschild is the vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin.