The other day I read an article about a German grocery store setting up shop in Cecil County, here in Maryland. That sounds cool. It’s not going to affect me much, but there is one problem I see here. There was a state loan of $360,000, which comes from the funds of taxes on all state citizens, not just that particular county. Not to mention, a grant from Cecil county taxpayers to train its employees, along with another county tax funded loan conditional on job goals.

Why is it necessary to use state funds for a private company to start a business? The citizens of the state didn’t call for this. Lidl says its market in Europe is becoming saturated and coming to the United States seem like a good gamble for a fresh market. I get that. Sounds like a good idea. But the citizens of this state were not the ones looking for the profits of this venture, it’s the business. This is their gamble, let them invest. If they want people to put money up for this venture, ask! Look for investors who are willing to hand you a check.

Instead, they take it from someone like me, living in Baltimore County, who will never benefit (I can’t say that for sure because I can’t see the future, but it’s a safe bet). Instead they are investing (gambling) that money in a venture I never had a say in, and one that I will never see a return on. When the state takes money from people, the people have an expectation of where those funds will go (from what I observe, statists love funding roads and their own extortion, police). Not even the saddest of statists would sit there dreaming about how beautiful it is that his tax dollars are going to set up an international grocery store office three hours away. Anyone can see how that seems pretty indefensible. Even those who say we need taxes to fund roads do not argue, “We need the state to loan money to an international grocery chain to compete with the other large super market chains already here.” That is crazy.

So, here in Maryland, we’re giving out loans and grants for grocery stores, because that will help competition and bring prices down (even though people would have more purchasing power if they had more money, like the money that was taken from them to fund the competition). We’re giving millions of dollars to put kids in prison, because that will make inmates more comfortable (instead of looking at what kind of environment is there to create such a need for a children’s prison). They try to justify throwing money at things, instead of dealing with systematic problems, by saying how it is going to be a positive effect on the “community”. But, with all the problems in the school system, instead of throwing money at the school system, or rather resources, we freeze their funding and tell them to figure it out. I’m not saying I want to steal from people to provide education to their children, but I think if you are going to steal from them you could at least spend it on their children, or their roads, or things they actually think they can’t have without you. How do they argue these policies?

The state makes an idiotic argument here. What they believe is that they can take from you, and everyone else, an arbitrary amount of resources, based on the “votes” of a small representation of the citizenry and argue they will use that money to invest in what is best for you, what you cannot do yourself. The argument in there is that they believe they can take from society (individuals collectively make society), and with that negative create a positive, give back to the individual in a different form. You can’t take from someone, create blanket restrictions and barriers to success, add in a couple of roads, without knowing what will make every one of those individuals actually succeed in their unique endeavors, and put forth a legitimate claim of “helping” these people.

If this store is not going to benefit me (which I have already assured you that it most likely will not), how can the state argue that it has the right to take from me without directly or indirectly showing me any returns on those investments, and saying it is a positive to this society? If the individual is society, then I am society. You are society. We are all society. So if you take from me you are taking from society, and if you are not taking that money and doing anything that will remotely benefit me you cannot argue you are helping society. Again, because, I am society.

And I can guarantee you I am not the only Marylander that feels this way. I’m sure most of us, if we must have funds stolen from us, would prefer these funds go to fixing our damaged roads, cleaning up the harbor, our broken school system, police training, efforts to combat homelessness, an enormous list of problems to solve we can focus on. I think Lidl can find their own funds if they want to take on a new business venture. It is not my business whether they succeed or fail, and it shouldn’t be my, or any other taxpayer’s, monetary gamble.

How can people argue the state is how we facilitate our means to success? How can people argue, when we look at the waste, the corruption, the abuse, the ineptitude of some of their policies, that they help society? Think of all the waste in valuable natural, and human resources that would end if we all just voluntarily directed our resources where we feel they are most necessary? I find it funny when people argue that I don’t want to fund roads when I say I disagree with taxation. My argument is that I actually think people generally think roads are good, including myself, and would fund them in some way or another provided they had alternatives to an inept monopoly. When you argue to force people to pay for these things, you are the one saying you won’t voluntarily pay for them.

I think a monopoly in a market, especially one based in threat of force and fear tactics, is bound to be riddled with waste and corruption and any alternative sounds better than that.