The Uselessness of Private Charity

[Ben Kenobi]

6 miles = 9.7 Km

Why are you using miles? Don't they train you in civilised units?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The "least fortunate" certainly aren't contributing to my protection.

But the state is keeping the "least fortunate" from rising up and nailing your priviledged ass to the wall and taking everything. It's either take this pittance in taxes or everything... your choice.

[David Floyd]

The state is simply fulfilling it's primary function by doing that - I'm happy to pay for police and prisons to lock people up who "rise up and take stuff".

[chequita guevara]

It costs more to police and incarcerate than it does simply to provide charity. Eventually the disparity would get so great even the most ruthless policing would not be able to stop a revolution. Government enforced charity is a cost you pay to avoid revolution.

[David Floyd]

Sounds like extortion, to me - I'm not going to encourage that behavior, or the threat of it, by paying off would-be thieves. You also overestimate the number of people who would have no recourse other than government welfare - private charity would pick up quite a bit of the slack, and for the remaining people who commit violent crimes, well, that's what prisons are for (and private ownership of firearms, of course).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You also overestimate the number of people who would have no recourse other than government welfare - private charity would pick up quite a bit of the slack,

Just like the 19th Century, eh?

[Sandman]

You could cut taxes even more if prisons were replaced by self-financing labour camps.

And what happens to those people who can't/won't pay for the police and prisons?

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The state is simply fulfilling it's primary function by doing that - I'm happy to pay for police and prisons to lock people up who "rise up and take stuff".

Or they could decide to arrest people like you and redistribute the wealth.

[Odin]

Oh great, not the Libertarian "tax is extortion" sh!t. Where I come from we consider the welfare state moral and proper and believe society should be for the good of all.

[pchang]

Which is why libertarian tax cheats go to jail

[Odin]

Originally posted by pchang
Which is why libertarian tax cheats go to jail

GET IN THE CLINK, BADNARIK!!!

[David Floyd]

che,

Just like the 19th Century, eh?

There are more options for private charity now than then, with greater technology - or I should say, more ways for those who need charity to find it.

And way to not address my main points - my main point isn't whether or not charity would pick up all or even part of the slack, that isn't really relevant to me.

Gepap,

Or they could decide to arrest people like you and redistribute the wealth.

Sure, I suppose that's what people with guns could do. Wouldn't be moral, though, nor would it be very intelligent. Getting rid of the haves and giving their wealth to the have nots would result in a breakdown of the country, because to a large degree, the have nots are have nots for a good reason.

Odin,

Oh great, not the Libertarian "tax is extortion" sh!t.

Actually that wasn't precisely my point. My point was that paying taxes because otherwise people will have a revolution and take your money is sort of like paying protection money to the mafia - it's extortion, and there needs to be a better reason than that.

Where I come from we consider the welfare state moral and proper and believe society should be for the good of all.

Yeah, the people who do and have nothing should be supported by those who work and make money

That's just silly - if those who actually earn their money want to help others, then they can and should. If not, and if those who don't have any money can't find any, then that is their sole responsibility. Not mine.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It costs more to police and incarcerate than it does simply to provide charity. .

That almost seems to imply that charity could reduce the need for policing. I don't see that. Most of the reciepients I see are so strung out or down and out that they are incapable of any real planned appropriation of another's wealth . .. OR are poorer parents for whom crime is not at all a likely method.

Most of the housebreakers and embezzlers do NOT seem to be among the poorest

[Flubber]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Yeah, the people who do and have nothing should be supported by those who work and make money

We differ . I see a benefit to and a moral duty on the state to provide the basic amenities . . . and by basic, I mean basic . . .. food and shelter.

I detest long term able-bodied welfare. Perhaps if welfare for the ablebodied was a set decline curve from moderately poor toward nothing. .. .

My big problem is dealing with children. I don't think any system has ever found a good balance between providing necessities for children ( or even monitoring that increased benefits don't go to drugs, alcohol and tobacco) AND the problem of women choosing to have babies SOLELY to increase their welfare. This does happen.