byronm said:
By your very argument we could go tit for tat in what we believe is charity and what isn't but to me that totally ignores the real questions at hand of why the service is there, what the service is fulfilling and how we can better provide said services because obviously there is a need being filled and fighting about who pays for that is a backwards way of fixing the problem. I don't really see as simple as being a charity :)
I don't see that its that hard to define chairity. Did the person using a service pay the cost of that service either directly or indirectly or did they rely on the generosity of others? ACORN doesn't drive me to the polls. They didn't help me get a loan for my sister's house. I helped my sister buy her house... (that's charity).
Your list of "real questions" presuppose agreement on what services are needed and justified. I don't think proselytizing Christianity is a service that needs to be provided. I dare say the majority of people in my bible belt state disagree. If it weren't for the direct obvious unconstitutionality do you think my state legislators would hesitate to fund this "service"?
...With that said, i believe the "Charity" works even if it is taxes.. in one case it brings more businesses to our country and our communities through tax breaks, incentives and local development offerings and in other cases it keeps people off the streets or in this case gets them registered to vote.
"Works" in what sense? Has the welfare state worked? But say it works fine. I still ask the fundamental question... can you justify enforcing "charity" with violence? Because make no mistake. If I refuse to pay "my fair share" as decided by the majority then someone with a gun on his holster will come to cart me off to jail for tax evasion.
I'm not naive about government either.. my support of governance is not a support of draconian governance by any means.. i don't want to take logic out of the equation but i don't fundamentally associate government as illogical.. hard to explain but oh well ;)
Governance is one thing... "Thou shalt not burn down your neighbor's house because he plays his stereo too loud" is governance. But remember if people choose to obey a rule without government enforcement then there is no need for government involvement. If some fail to obey that rule then government ultimately must resort to threats of violence against someone. They could bribe me to follow some rule but they must extort money from you to pay that bribe. All governance is through FORCE.
This isn't evil it is just the nature of government. It is necessary to oppose violence with violence. In order to prevent lynch mobs and tit for tat vendetta murders and foreign invasion et al we form a governing body to adjudicate and punish individual acts of violence and defend individual civil liberties. Once that is decided we may argue as to its form. Once the government is in place we may also apply it to other issues, such as sharing risk and maintaining infrastructure.
But beware the slippery slope to tyranny. A democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship (though not as efficiently). If you don't believe that look at the treatment of blacks in the south after reconstruction. And the majority though they we being beneficently paternalistic toward an inferior race as they kept the black community disenfranchised.
So there.. i explained a little bit about my beliefs, explained that i felt your argument is mostly for the sake of argument itself rather then the sake of fixing the problem at hand and when it comes to fixing the problem at hand i feel the combined efforts of all people is better than pretending private interests have any concern other than themselves.
This confuses me. The private interests consists of the very same individuals as the voting public. How can the same people be both "concerned citizens acting through government" and "greedy private sector looking out for only themselves"?
Combining the efforts of many does not require government. Government is only needed if you want to
force people to participate. You say combining the efforts of all people is
better but that presupposes the endeavor is a
good endeavor. Should those who do not so think be forced to participate? Is that right?
Or are you saying your ability to perceive
the good is better than mine so you should force me to conform to your idea of public welfare?
But you have an opposite effect by involving government. The private individual can shrug off any conscience at participating in philanthropy... "I pay my taxes! Let the guvernment take care of 'em!" Cash channeled through government cannot have near the effect as one person helping another out by showing him how to get back on his feet. What's more you breed a whole subculture of individuals whose first reaction is to look to the government for assistance in bad times. When things get bad enough and government by its nature acts too slowly they have no instinct of self reliance. Take the case of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans?
Look at the charitable giving of your "greedy" corporations. For that matter look at how much ACORN is funded by the private sector and volunteers. As far as "fixing the problem at hand" is concerned the private sector philanthropy can be freely innovative and is directly answerable to the individuals paying for it. The supporters support the effort because they believe and only so long as they believe it is worthy and effective.
But there is always going to be disagreement as to what really is a "problem" and what really is the right "solution" and which of many problems should have priority. When it comes to security and defense we haven't a choice. Our government cannot enforce its own laws unless it carries the biggest stick. (That cannot be handled through the private sector.) I just say it should use that stick to "break up fights" and not to whop people over the head because they haven't been "kind enough to their neighbors."
It is a fundamental moral question. It is wrong to throw a person in jail for not being generous. If I refuse to fund ACORN and I'm out voted then jail is my only other option. (Well there is the John Galt option.)
[EDIT: And by the way, I am not arguing for arguments sake. I think this specific issue is the biggest threat to individual civil liberties and the survival of our Nation than any other including terrorism. It is the literal "path to hell paved by good intentions". Look at the arguments to tax Soda...justified by the need to pay for socialized medicine and thus justified because of future cost to taxpayers. If that doesn't scare the beegeebies out of you then you are not paying attention to your government.]
