|
| Thread: Voluntary Charity vs Welfare |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted November 15, 2010 08:24 PM |
|
|
Voluntary Charity vs Welfare
I started this thread because the Tea Party thread is getting off topic.
Voluntary Charity vs Welfare
Charity and welfare are two distinct concepts. Charity is associated with compassion but welfare is associated with a "you owe me" entitlement mentality.
One of the many problems I have with leftism is that it is opposed to the concept of free will on a number of issues. The concept of free will is absent from all forms of government welfare. Welfare is carried out by force employed to seize people’s money, which is then redistributed to recipients designated by a government beaurocrat. Contrast that with charity, a person of his own free will choosing to help a person in need. Obviously there is a moral difference between taking property by force and giving it to someone else and a person voluntarily giving someone his property because he wants to help the other person. Charity is noble. Welfare is not. Charity respects private property rights, welfare does not.
If I were to come up to you on the street and put a gun to your head and take your wallet then walk over to a homeless person and give him your wallet would that be charity? No, that would be robbery, which is exactly how the government carries out welfare. Welfare is not charity. Nothing I did with the money I stole from you would make my actions moral. Likewise, nothing about welfare is moral because the government agencies are "giving away" stolen goods.
Do the poor have a right to my money? The left says yes, it is economic justice to seize my property and redistribute it to those who have less than I do. However, I must disagree with the concept of using taxation for wealth redistribution. I am the only one who is entitled to my property. It is wrong to violate my right to my private property to benefit another person.
My first duty is to myself and my family. There is no Constitutional duty for me to give my money to anyone else, although I chose to do so. There is no Constitutional authority for the government to tax me for the purposes of redistributing my wealth.
It is the duty of a person to be self-supporting and to help himself when possible. When this is not possible he should seek the aid of family and friends. That failing, he should go to local charities or local philanthropists. He should do everything possible to help himself. What he should not do is think that he is entitled to my money. He can ask for a hand out but it is immoral for him to take my money by force using either a weapon he is holding or using a politician as a weapon. Aid being given on the local level leads to a sense of community. Both for the person being helped and the person doing the helping.
So we see charity emphasizes:
1) autonomy: a person seeking to stand on his own two feet when possible;
2) "face to face" support from friends, family, benevolent community members, local churches, and local charities.
Charity leads to the community bonding and lifts up the human spirit. Both the giver and receiver of the aid have their sense of belonging to the community strengthened. And voluntarily sacrificing for the good of others is good for one's spirit. The same can't be said of governmental redistribution of wealth. Thus the principle of charity is neighbors helping neighbors rather than neighbors stealing from neighbors. When local aid is not enough, for example when a great disaster strikes an area, interstate or international aid can be sought. As Christ taught, being a good neighbor is not limited to being loving and kind to those who live next to you.
The welfare state hurts the poor. It does this by:
1) seizing and wasting lots of money that could have been used to help the poor. Governments are notorious in their inefficiency. Welfare draws funding from involuntary taxation. This guaranteed income leads to greater administrative costs for the government programs, less effectiveness, and low selectivity. Charity relies on free will, and is generally more efficient because of their limited funds and because funds are given willingly to causes that donors care about. Charities can specify to whom funds are given, and also what the recipient must do to receive funds, eliminating the entitlement philosophy and leading to greater effectiveness of the money spent.
2) lessening the desire of citizens to help one another sense they become indoctrinated into thinking "that is the government's job." This further destroys the sense of community.
3) producing a sense of entitlement in the person who receives the money that the government seized from others. That also contributes to poor community relationships.
4) lessens the drive to be more productive, to work harder, to do what it takes to rise out of poverty.
The Free Lunch
____________
Revelation
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 15, 2010 10:20 PM |
|
|
Your view is an extreme minority view, even among fiscal conservatives. In the US there has been a lot of talk about welfare reform, but not welfare elimination like you seem to support. I hate to guess at numbers like this, but I'll do it anyway and say that the number of people who would support the elimination of welfare is probably well under one in a thousand. Ronald Reagan was a champion of welfare reform and he would never have suggested welfare elimination. The first Bush and his "thousand points of light" would never have suggested the elimination of welfare. I don't keep up with these things like I used to, but I don't ever recall any mainstream politician advocating it. You might be able to find some references to radical politicians supporting elimination, but I guarantee there is no widespread support whatsoever.
My views about the welfare system in the US *AS IMPLIMENTED* should be known by now, and I don't have time to go into that right now.
Regarding your constitutional argument. I tend to somewhat agree that it COULD be interpreted in that way, but I don't think it's a strong argument. However:
1) It only applies to the US
2) It has nothing to do with any kind of moral debate on the issue, it only vaguely addresses certain legal issues
3) Even in the US it only applies at the federal level and doesn't in any way apply to the states or any other government agency
Personally I have no problem whatsoever with the government helping people who truly need it. It's the implementation and resulting entitlement mentality that's the problem. The implementation is absolutely terrible, ineffective, extremely inefficient and has the opposite effect that it's supposed to have.
I'll bring up one last thing. You have to be careful with definitions here. The average everyday use of the word "welfare" in the US is not necessarily the same as it's used elsewhere. In everyday speech, things like social security and medicare are not normally categorized as welfare in the US. In normal language there are probably over a hundred programs that people would call welfare, but things like social security (pension), medicare (medical for retirement age people), workers compensation (medical for on-the-job injuries), unemployment insurance, disability, etc are not among them. The difference being that you pay into all those things just listed.
Things like rehabilitation are also not normally considered welfare in everyday language here. Rehab can come in a couple of different flavors. It can be someone who was injured and can no longer work in their previous job, so they are re-trained for something else. Or it can be rehab for drug addicts or alcoholics to get them straight.
"Welfare" tends to be a very broad term. To meaningfully discuss it, you almost need to discuss specific programs rather than some ambiguous catch-all term like welfare.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 15, 2010 11:43 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:45, 15 Nov 2010.
|
Welfare is immoral becaue it violates a basic human right. The right to property.
Marx said: “The human essence is the true collectivity of man.” The Marxist notion of humanity can thus be portrayed as an ant colony, where a singular ant's only value is what it can do for the colony. I disagree with the Marxist notion that human beings are primarily part of a collective. Human beings are instead primarily individuals. Individuals group together for various common interests and goals.
When a friend dies a person does not simply say "Oh well, I'll get another friend." If human beings were primarily part of a collective any human being would be easily replaced. Human beings are primarily individuals.
As individuals, we each have a right to our own life and to the fruits of our life. Private property rights is just an extension of the right to life. I obtain private property through investing a portion of my life through work and various other things. I am the only one entitled to what my life produces.
As mentioned previously, though human beings are individuals we group together for certain purposes. There will be a lot of conflict if when we group together our private property rights are not respected. For example, if I am a chess club member when I park my car in front of the club house if a member takes my car without permission, I am going to be very upset. We are members of a group but in becoming a member of the group I did not give up my right to my property.
Private property rights are a basic human right and are vital to an individual's liberty. The right to private property being a basic human right means that not only can't the federal government ignore it but that the state governments can't either. Welfare, which violates private property rights, is as illegal and immoral for individual states to carry out as it is for the federal government to carry out.
Quote:
“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–’the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.’” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy’s “Political Economy,” 1816.
“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”–Abraham Lincoln, March 21, 1864.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 01:18 AM |
|
|
I would really like to agree with Elodin on this but I can't. If we say we have absolute property rights, then that rules out all taxation - not just to fund welfare.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 01:28 AM |
|
|
Ideally, charity is best, but we can see we are rather egoist. well, I think it is probably something making us insensible to the problems of other people, maybe in the way we live, the information we receive. maybe the fact so many people live so mechanically and become like robots.
Quote:
If I were to come up to you on the street and put a gun to your head and take your wallet then walk over to a homeless person and give him your wallet would that be charity?
it kinda happened to me, with kids claiming to work for the Unicef, they were trying to pull my wallet off my hand and kept saying stuffs like "you are a very kind person" that was quite sad.
Quote:
That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise
That some should be rich shows that some others must be poor because rich is a word of comparison.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 01:35 AM |
|
|
Charity does not wholly care for the needy, not even necessarily because too many well-off people are unwilling to give some of their resources, but because most are aggravated knowing that they might give resources whilst another will not, and that dampens their sense of generosity.
Idealistically it is completely unnecessary to have any sort of government welfare, or for that matter, government, but such a world would have to boast an incredibly honorable species, and here's news: we ain't it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 04:20 AM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 04:20, 16 Nov 2010.
|
I'd like to live in a world where everybody who is having rough times can know the pleasures of a truly charitable bunch of people but sadly, that is not the case.
I'd have died if not for the government stepping in to help because of my crippled/enfeebled parents.
Doesn't mean I'm not willing to work for my living.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 08:02 AM |
|
|
One problem of the opening post is the fact that voluntary charity simply is no concept (to address poverty), just as voluntary schoolgoing is no concept to address education.
If voluntary charity is to be more than people begging on the streets for alms, not only is it necessary to organize charity in some way (diminishing the differences to governmental welfare), it is also necessary to somehow infuse society with the idea of donating.
This in turn means, since capitalism isn't exactly promoting charity, that an underlying "humanistic ideology" binding for the whole of society is necessary to make that work - that is, the virtues of charity and so on will have to be taught within a reasonable system of moral or society conform behaviour.
I do actually think that this would be good. We actually need something like that - however the order of appearance is wrong. We need this "ideology" and its teaching first - then we can rely on the "concept" of voluntary charity, but it still would have to be seen whether this would work at all.
And, no, known religions are not qualified, but a dicussion of that would be off-topic here.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 08:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
that is, the virtues of charity and so on will have to be taught within a reasonable system of moral or society conform behaviour.
But it IS taught.
I can't speak for anywhere else, but in the states charity is heavily ingrained in us. Not that everyone gives large amounts but I think it would be very difficult to find someone who has not given to charity. And there is a significant portion of the population who give fairly large amounts to charity. And for the wealthy, they would be under a lot of social pressure and downright ostracized if they did NOT give large sums of money to charity.
Also, charity doesn't have to be money. Giving time is also a common way to give to charity. There are lots of organized charities, but there is also a lot of individual effort. That may range from helping elderly neighbors to volunteer work at an abused spouse shelter.
I personally prefer directly giving time to individuals. That way I know where it's going and I know it's really helping someone. I think it's also appreciated a lot more by the recipient.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 08:55 AM |
|
|
Umm, wait.
You mean, the virtue of charity is taught in school? In classes everyone has to attend? Within the frame of a reasonable ethical system, that somewhat underlies the driving forces of capitalism with a solid ethical fundament to somewhat control greed and so on?
I somewhat doubt that.
Considering the fact that a certain amount of welfare is existing in the US, IF this was so and IF in the US so many people are so charitable - then why do we still have so much poverty in the US?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 09:25 AM |
|
|
First, all taxation does not just go to 'welfare' as you put it. It goes to fix roads, run schools, help those who can otherwise not afford it to get an education, and a lot of other things as well. So simply saying 'we shouldn't be taxed because of 'welfare'' is a moot point.
Now as for 'welfare' itself. I am with Bina on this. I think it really really needs a reform, but as a human being I could not say to get rid of it altogether.
There are people who legitimately need it, through no fault of their own. Illnesses, diseases, etc. Helping others is NOT a Marxist idea, it is a HUMAN idea. While there are those who abuse and misuse the system, it is not the systems fault. Sure it could use changes, but it is the PEOPLE in the system who are at fault.
The 'Elitist' of course do not usually care about others. Some like to make themselves feel better by donating, but then they use it like a club. "But I donate! See! I am a good person!" Now, before anybody gets offended..not everybody who donates does this, some do however.
Charity is a good thing, but if you are doing it for the wrong reason..might as well not do it at all. Like those who go to a church to show everybody how 'righteous' they are, then go out and drink/use prostitutes/etc.
The point is, that it is easy for those who have wealth to say "You don't need X"..because they live in some ivory tower, and can no longer see the troubles that plague people. To judge people saying that they don't work hard enough, or long enough hours..
Which I would love them to explain that to my grandfather who died of black lung from working 16 hrs a day in a coal mine..and died with nothing. Yeah, guess 16 hrs a day is not hard or long enough..
In summary (since I know I am a bit chaotic)..taxes do not only go to 'welfare', but I do agree that the government needs to be more streamlined..and reduce waste. I pay taxes like everybody else, and yes sometimes it gets ridiculous, but a less corrupt government would indeed do a LOT more with it. So by all means, get rid of the corruption, make the taxes more efficient, and get them out of our private lives. Just don't eliminate taxes, help those who really need it, and by all that is sanity keep an eye on everything that BOTH sides do. PS...another party added might help things, or it might make it worse. *shrugs*
____________
Message received.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 09:33 AM |
|
|
I usually think of it like this:
There's plenty of human rights, that we should do as much as we can to secure and keep available for everyone. One of the is the right of ownership, but having a total ownership will in the long run contradict justice and the freedom of human freedom. Why? Because, first of, people will never ever be able to start out equally(as kids) and because charity doesn't add up.
Let's say you earn 5 000$ a month. Then you'll pay what? 1 500$? And since you'll a generous person you'll give 500$ to charity.
If we then remove taxation, would you givee 2000$? No. Would you give 1000$, propably not, but maybe. Then we can also assume that most people aren't that generous. Still, to hold up some basic human rights, apart of ownership, such as schools, hospitals and political organisations to uphold and run these rights.
Since common health(for example) care and total ownership rights contradict each other you'll have to make a priority. Either give up some property or watch sick people die, but since most people keep away from the really sick people they will choose the latter if they get total freedom(another human right). We can see this repeat through out history, people will wage war, take from poor and sick, pollute and so on.
To uphold some human rights, we have to reduce some other, and this applies to almost every human rght there is.
The perfect example is that every one should start out equally in life. To really accomplish this it would take such tremendous recources that enviromental issues (for me, keeping earth livable for the future is a human right). Thus taxation is necessary to uphold some of these rights, even if it contradicts others and it will for all time (till Utopia) be a discussion on where to draw the line, what rights are the more important ones and how to uphold these rights.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 09:43 AM |
|
|
Not to mention that charity can and is and will be abused just as welfare.
Charity - or the flip side, begging - has been an art in earlier times and is still a job basically everywhere in the world. Deceit is part of it. If you want to apply to the pity in humans you must look pitiable. Beggars have alwys been faking all kinds of handicaps or injuries - and there are even beggars who are rich. Charity can be tricked just as the government.
Which means that the abuse of welfare is just no point against it.
In fact, isn't abused charity WORSE? If you DO something out of pure human sympathy, and later on you discover you have been tricked, the money has Not gone where it was intended to go - isn't that even MORE annyoing than someone cashing in welfare and doing a couple of sidejobs at that?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 09:52 AM |
|
|
Also, do not forget that there are cases of Charities where the people in charge of them ripped those who gave off..and pocketed the money? Also, talk about 'inefficient' Often less then 80% of what is given actually makes it to the people who need it! Most organized charity have 'overhead' that they have to cover before releasing a dime to those they are collecting the money for.
Like mentioned if you find somebody in need yourself and donate, there is a chance you get ripped off (ie they are con artist). If you give to a big established organization, not all your money actually goes to where it should.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 09:54 AM |
|
|
@JJ (I guess I took too long to answer and I'm several posts behind...anyway....)
We don't have "so much" poverty in the US. It's a myth. That's not saying that poverty doesn't exist at all, but true poverty would be pretty rare in the US.
The hardest hit, like the homeless you hear about, are mostly alcoholics, drug addicts and the mentally ill who don't take advantage of existing services. Then it becomes an ethical question of whether you should force someone to take advantage of those services.
Both governmental and private charity services are quite abundant in the US and they should be available to all but the most remotely located people. (of course with 300 million people there will always be people who slip through the cracks) The way the courts generally view this is that a person can only be "forced" to get help if they are at risk of harming themselves or others. Simply being homeless or living an unhealthy lifestyle doesn't fall into this category.
One thing to keep in mind about the so-called poverty in the US, is that *most* of the people classified as living in poverty are living a very high standard of living compared to people in most of the world.
And why does the virtue of charity need to be taught in school? Most of what we learn is outside of school. I can't really answer where it comes from. I can only say it's part of society. Where did YOU learn the virtue of charity? Was it taught to you somewhere? You obviously picked it up somewhere, and so did most other people. There have been several cases of people here at HC who mentioned donating money or time, and probably the vast majority never mentioned it. Where did they learn it? I can't answer that question for myself. It probably came from my parents, although I don't specifically remember it being taught.
BTW, to clarify: As I mentioned earlier, I don't agree with Elodin that governmental charity should be eliminated, and neither would most other people. Private charity is substantial, but I don't think it's enough. My problem with the system in the US is not whether it should or shouldn't exist, it's that the system is VERY seriously broken.
The main flaw in Elodin's view is that the broken system in the US is somehow universal, that just because the implementation here is screwed up that it means there is something inherently wrong with welfare. He doesn't separate the basic concept of welfare from the specific implementation we have. The only thing I have knowledge of is the way it is here. I have no freaking idea how it works other places.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 10:05 AM |
|
|
I need to go to bed, but I wanted to quote this.
Quote:
Helping others is NOT a Marxist idea, it is a HUMAN idea
Exactly. I don't remember if Marx even addressed charity....but it's been so long since I read him that I don't remember for sure. I remember him being more about working people rather than people who are unable to work.
I think the important point here is that MOST people would favor helping those in need, even through taxation and government programs, *IF* those programs actually work and help the people in need without creating a dependence.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 10:12 AM |
|
|
@ Bin
I'm not sure whether I really should engage in a discussion here, since we agree about the general issue.
Just for explanation, "poverty" is a matter of definition, and for me (living in a) "slum" is one of the main characteristics of being poor, especially for children who really can't pick their lot. With "slums" come high crime rate, low education, children and youth gangs, minimal policing, sicknesses, vermin and so on. Last thing I heard, slums are quite common in US cities (and not only there).
That said, what you say is, no, the virtue of charity is not taught in school, but in life - which I frankly don't see.
For example, I'm not so sure that tax deductability of donations for many isn't a more valid reason to make them than the virtue of simply helping people in need, and it all depends on people trying to raise charity funds, that is, motivating people somehow to donate for this and that.
No, I don't think our current life teaches the virtue of giving.
But as I said, I'm not sure whether I really want to discuss that.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 11:08 AM |
|
|
I REALLY need to go to bed, but...
Quote:
Last thing I heard, slums are quite common in US cities (and not only there).
You heard wrong then. I suppose it depends on how you define "slum" and how you define "common". I've traveled the US extensively and I've never seen a slum. When I travel I avoid cities as much as possible. But I've lived in, or spent a fair amount of time in, several cities with over a million population, and none of those have had what I would call a slum. They have older parts of town with a lower standard of living, but not what I would call slums. Some of the largest cities might have slums but it's far from "common".
I picture slums like the images in the media of Harlem in New York City. I have never seen anything like that. And I am most definitely not some rich kid living a sheltered life of luxury. Let's put it this way, I know what it means to be alive today only because of someone else's charity toward their fellow human being. I say that quite literally. When I say that the system is broken in the US, it's because it's broken. When I say it creates a dependency, it's because I really believe it creates a dependency.
I don't know what your view is of the US, but from everything I hear and read from people at HC and other places, they have a VERY distorted view of the US.
@Ohfor, no he didn't misunderstand the concept, not in the US. The problem is that he assumes it's the same everywhere else.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 11:43 AM |
|
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 12:22 PM |
- penalty applied by angelito on 16 Nov 2010. |
|
What I'm saying is that if you don't want to bother reading what people actually say then that's your own problem. If you don't believe what people who have lived here over 50 years say, then get your ass over here and find out for yourself. Now fk off and quit putting words into my mouth.
|
| |
|
|
