All markets in pure a capitalist system would become either monopolies or oligopolies, with power distributed into the hands of just a few (the people who own those companies). The people eventually revolt…

Socialism is designed that way from the start, with the power in the hands of just a few (whomever is making the decisions of where resources are distributed). Of course, that’s socialism in practice, because in theory it works more like anarchy. The people eventually revolt…

Regardless, the only system that’s been proven to work is one where the forces of government power play tug-of-war with market powers.

In this case, there is more than a simple bit of charity going on. One could argue from a market perspective that in our increasingly interconnected global private market, there is a greater need for political and economic stability (arguably, a public good) among trade partners. If President Bush were to refuse to provide any assistance to the affected region, would he stand a chance at having a Republican as a successor? Would our standing as a secure nation be enhanced or diminished?

Furthermore, as a poor, helpless victim of taxes, is there any meaningful impact on your tax burden? The obvious answer to this last question: no. I may sound insensitive here to your plight, but your plight here is remarkably meaningless and empty outside the positive externalities that result from one of your tax dollars going toward emergency assistance.

Caution: radical market fundamentalists speaking here. I just don’t get how you make the world more just by victimizing one set of people even as that helps another.