 Quote:
Originally Posted by armor99
I agree with you completely. No one in this country should be hungry...
By the same token, the government is not required to provide any of these neccessities for you. They are required to stop others from attempting to stop you from trying. Charity is a wonderful thing. I have given freely of my time and my money on numerous occasions, and will probably continue to do so in the future. But "forced charity" is a horrible thing. When the govt provides for someone that has not provided for themselves, the only way they can do that, is via all of our taxes that we pay. The govt has no money of it's own. My taxes should be used for things that I can at least in part derive benefit from. Schools, roads, libraries all qualify. What can I gain from my money going into another mans pocket? It makes me feel good that I can help someone who truly needs it. But that gets back to the whole charity thing again. Taking money from me for charity in my opinion goes against the whole point of the charitable donation, and that point is that it is voluntary. Once it is no longer a voluntary act the value of it is lost.
|
Ideology aside, there are some things that the Government can do significantly better, like fighting hunger in America or throughout the world, than charities. And it makes economic sense, from a purely self-interest perspective (and I know that appeals to you) that Government do this, not charities.I read an article the other day discussing a hunger study by a prominent expert that says it would take the Government $12 billion to eliminate hunger in America, as opposed to the $14.5 billion charities currently expend to fight hunger and the $90 billion in costs in "hunger related problems" paid by all of us. So, it seems that this private charity thing is sometimes inefficient to address some social issues.
|