Government or Charity?

TheGrungeDiva said:

I think everyone here would agree (at least I hope they would) that we should help the needy, feed the hungry, give to the poor, care for the sick, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes.

The opposition (libertarians and republicans here in the US ... I don't know what parties they are elsewhere) say these services are better handled by "the private sector".

Click to expand...

I'm roughly a libertarian (or "classical liberal"). I'm not a Christian.

The main issue for me isn't some utilitarian argument that keeping such issues in non-governmental hands is economically optimal or produces the most aid. It's an ethical issue in which individuals are seen as having lives of their own and are not to be treated as mere tools by any government, to be coerced into giving up justly owned resources at a political decree and to be made unwilling participants in some social engineer's idealistic plans. Also, that individuals need individual liberty in order to function as rational beings, and that they are capable of making and being responsible for their own ethical decisions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

Yes.



I'm roughly a libertarian (or "classical liberal"). I'm not a Christian.

The main issue for me isn't some utilitarian argument that keeping such issues in non-governmental hands is economically optimal or produces the most aid. It's an ethical issue in which individuals are seen as having lives of their own and are not to be treated as mere tools by any government, to be coerced into giving up justly owned resources at a political decree and to be made unwilling participants in some social engineer's idealistic plans. Also, that individuals need individual liberty in order to function as rational beings, and that they are capable of making and being responsible for their own ethical decisions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

I am a Chistian, but I see nothing in the post above that I don't fully agree with.

I'd add, I don't see any reason why the statement

For example, if you are Christian, does your Christian calling tell you that the government should butt out of church work, and therefore charity work should NOT be done with taxes?

Click to expand...

and

do you think God judges the whole nation based on how it treats the least in its society, the widow and orphan, and therefore the government SHOULD have social services?

Click to expand...

can't be in agreement rather than contrast. Almost every faith has some mechanism for charity within it. It is however objectionable to force anyone to give charity . . . I'd go so far as to call it immoral.

All risks in life needn't be socialized, but a civilized modern society also shouldn't look like a Dickens novel, with destitutes roaming and dying on the streets. Society doesn't owe everyone a living, but there ought to be a minimum safety net. Mostly, the private sector should provide this, but there are some things that government has to do. At the federal level, revising the tax system with a flat tax and a negative income tax would be a possibility. (Basically, below a certain income level, rather than owing no tax, one is paid a stipend. The EITC is a variation of this already.) Any further income assistance from government should be at the state level. I've posted before about a way to approach health insurance through the private sector with government's role being confined to oversight. Everyone would have a low-cost, high-deductible, catastrophic policy provided by a consortium of private carriers on a non-profit basis. This would act as the basic safety net, and people who want more extensive coverage coverage can buy supplemental policies of their choice. This would replace all employer based health plans, Medicare, and Medicaid. It would be administered at the state, or maybe regional level, and premium assistance to low-income persons would also be a state or regional responsibility--possibly funded by a sales tax. I like the idea of government-private partnerships as providers of low-income safety nets, but I would limit these just to the big-ticket items (like health insurance) and would keep them at lower levels than federally. I especially like the idea of groups of states joining together into regional enterprises to spread their costs for these services.

TheGrungeDiva said:

I think everyone here would agree (at least I hope they would) that we should help the needy, feed the hungry, give to the poor, care for the sick, etc.

Click to expand...

If your reader accepts the fact that the person Jesus Christ represents the authority of Divine Will, then his Sermon on the Mount becomes the clarion call of the gospel to all nations of earth in the name of His Father.

If your reader becomes quasi-Christ minded, permitting political influence to determine the interpretation of the Sermon of the Mount, then human reason can determine the true meaning of Christ's sermon and politics and government can replace Divine affirmation of truth.

If your reader fears governmmnt intervention in the lives of its people, then human fear replaces Divine love in the realm of daily living, and the very reason Christ appeared to set the captives free is reduced to doubt, disbelief, and unbelief.

That government in America hopes for charity from tax-exempt church denominations is an assumption that denominational churches can manifest the intention they claim has reality in Divine truth.

That denominational churches cannot provide for the common welfare of all citizens is self-evident, requiring government action.

This is the Divine Comedy: Church-state Co-existence in the Material World.

Macx said:

I am a Chistian, but I see nothing in the post above that I don't fully agree with.

I'd add, I don't see any reason why the statement and can't be in agreement rather than contrast. Almost every faith has some mechanism for charity within it. It is however objectionable to force anyone to give charity . . . I'd go so far as to call it immoral.

Click to expand...

Is it immoral to use collective funds to provide for the common defense? How about to provide services that only those in a certain position require such as fire fighters?

Belk said:

Is it immoral to use collective funds to provide for the common defense? How about to provide services that only those in a certain position require such as fire fighters?

Click to expand...

If the State forces the donations to those collective funds, yes, it is immoral. If however the "donations" are voluntary it is moral. Of course I have no problem with those failing to pay in, being denied services. It would afterall be immoral to force those services on people who choose not to pay in.

Guess it falls to me to be the 'bad guy' and disagree with the basic premise.

But let me first tell you why. Decades ago there was the second of the Watts riots. There was a call to donate food and/or other needs. But mainly food. I went down to donate, but the Church the hate radiated by the Church that was getting the lions share of the publicity was palpable. I tried a second Church. It was a 'name it and claim it' church, it was doing nothing as God would provide for all those with true faith.

Looking back I think one more failure and I would have decided 3 strikes and you are out. But on my third try I found a small Church that seems OK. I donated the food and ended up volunteering to help clean up some of the destruction.

During that cleanup I saw many local 'poor' not helping, no worse, actually mocking the other local residents that were helping cleanup their own neighborhood.

I happened to be doing contract work and could afford time off, I came back to help at that Church, by day 3 I was one of very few. It turned out I was pretty valuable. They had food, but nothing to help people carry it! With minimal effort I was able to get an entire bundle (close to 100 lbs) of the large brown paper bags from one Ralphs, less from other stores the next day. They had no box cutters, I happened to carry 2 swiss army knives. Soon those were being used to open all the boxes (At the end of the day, each day, teh head Church Lady would hunt me down and be sure the knives had been returned, I do not remember that happening anywhere else).

So no, we should NOT feed the hungry and help the poor. We should help those who are trying to help themselfs, we should not help those who are only looking for a handout.

For those who are trying we should do more than just giving food or funds, we should provide training and guidance. A hand up, not just a handout.

Now there are times when the handout is what is needed, that is what was needed when I was helping at the small Church. There will always be some who will try their best and still need help.

The problem I see with the Government providing things is people come to think of them as something they have a 'right' to. Even if we feel compeled to give those receiving should not think they have a right to receive.

TheGrungeDiva said:

1) Charity work should NOT be done with taxes
2) The government should provide social services

Ummm ... how could those statements be in agreement? How could the government provide social services without them being done with taxes? The only source of income for government is taxes, so anything the government does is funded by taxes.

Click to expand...

The statements were actually

For example, if you are Christian, does your Christian calling tell you that the government should butt out of church work, and therefore charity work should NOT be done with taxes?

Click to expand...

If this is true, Charity is still a need in society . . . the churches must put their money where there mouth is if they "go there".
and

do you think God judges the whole nation based on how it treats the least in its society, the widow and orphan, and therefore the government SHOULD have social services?

Click to expand...

granted that those social services enjoyed by the government are provided by the churches. They don't have to control charities for the society that they govern to benefit from them.

Control, afterall, is the problem we are facing as a society. Too much government control, too little personal responsibility.

Macx said:

If the State forces the donations to those collective funds, yes, it is immoral. If however the "donations" are voluntary it is moral. Of course I have no problem with those failing to pay in, being denied services. It would afterall be immoral to force those services on people who choose not to pay in.

Click to expand...

So you believe all taxes (that are not voluntarily paid of course) to be immoral?

The problem with relying on charity is that some groups win out and some groups lose out. For example, breast cancer has hundreds if not thousands of charities going for it, with all sorts of awareness marches and walks for the cure. Pancreatic cancer on the other hand has almost nothing going for it. With charities all the money ends up going to the "popular" ailments, and everyone else is left out in the cold.

Belk said:

So you believe all taxes (that are not voluntarily paid of course) to be immoral?

Click to expand...

Yes. . . . .is the short answer.

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard in Society and State
​

Click to expand...

Macx said:

Yes. . . . .is the short answer.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

TheGrungeDiva said:

....

The opposition (libertarians and republicans here in the US ... I don't know what parties they are elsewhere) say these services are better handled by "the private sector". For those who cannot afford the cost, there is charity.....

Click to expand...

this is partially incorrect. spreading the cost of having a reasonably healthy work force and pool of military conscripts has always been a good idea for the private sector and government. the question is how far can a government stretch limited budgets and how far should it?

as is obvious here, poverty relief is an industry unto itself and community organizers find it useful to grow an "us against them" attitude among their allies and among people they serve, as in "the humble poor vs. evil corporations" cliche.

this is not a simple issue. nonprofit hospitals trade tax exempt status for community services, hospitals and clinics taking federal dollars must provide some level of care for anyone who walks in, regardless of insurance or ability to pay or even citizenship. there are good policy reasons for some limited public health services but resources are not endless.

its hard to get a realistic handle on reform because the poverty relief professionals will never say enough is enough, free public health care should include prenatal and lung transplants for the needy. people, like one of the above posters who wants to be paid for doing nothing, come to expect handouts as a matter of right.

there's a limited role for government and charity should fill the gaps.

anarchy is so childish.

TheGrungeDiva said:

I don't think charity work, either from the private sector or from the government, negates your premise. I don't mind some kind of "screening process" to minimize the abuse, and make sure the people who receive aid are doing something to get themselves out of the vicious cycle of poverty, rather than just waiting for that government cheese.

Click to expand...

When I started my post my main ppoint was there is a big difference between 'the poor' and 'widows and orphans'.

Some deserve help, others do not. Sadly there seem to be some factors that create a negative correlation between seeking and deserving help (at least when the help is a handout).

In a perfect world, charities and individuals would give enough the government wouldn't have to. But we don't live in that world. I don't give enough, either, so I'm not judging others. It's just a fact- very few of us give enough. So the government should take up the slack. The country is perfectly willing to spend my tax money on thousands of things I find objectionable, so I have no problem with them 'giving hand-outs' to people I want helped.

Our veterans are a perfect example of this country saying one thing and doing another. We hail them as heroes, they are asked to risk their lives for causes they may not agree with- and they do it with valor whether it was volunteer service or they were drafted into past wars, and their families suffer while they are away. We hail them as everything good and true about America.

Then some of them come home from wars and become homeless. I don't care why they are homeless. I truly don't. Even if in some cases it's their own fault somehow. I don't care. They still need every service we can give them.

Now, if the politicians who use them to score political points and the Americans who consider them our heroes banded together, all of these veterans would be living in mansions and receiving the best medical care the world has to offer. We hail them as people who would certainly deserve them, so why are they living in cars?

Children are another perfect example. We cry about how children are our future and how wonderful and amazing life is, but then some people begrudge the free breakfast/lunch programs? What ogres. Work in a school for awhile and see the children whose only meal for the day is their free lunch or breakfast. Then wonder what they'll do on the weekend. That'll change your tune but fast about the horrible free lunch program. Or how about all the pro-lifers (like me) who cry and scream about no abortions, but then some pro-lifers don't want a nickle of their money going to help these women raise the child after it is born? Why do people do these things?

Because most people don't put their money where their mouths are, and they never will.

So if we as individuals won't help these veterans, or if there are people who are hungry, or if there are people who need better medical care, or women who need help raising a baby, or children who need a meal a day, and charities don't do everything needed, then I am perfectly fine with taking your tax dollars to do it. Some people do game the system. They should be punished and it should be stopped. However, I'm also perfectly fine with subsidizing them if it gets the one who truly need the help what they need.