First let's all get on the same page, since charity can be defined in a number of different ways. According to http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=charity , Charity is:
- S: (n) charity (a foundation created to promote the public good (not for assistance to any particular individuals))
- S: (n) charity, brotherly love (a kindly and lenient attitude toward people)
- S: (n) charity (an activity or gift that benefits the public at large)
- S: (n) Jacob's ladder, Greek valerian, charity, Polemonium caeruleum, Polemonium van-bruntiae, Polymonium caeruleum van-bruntiae (pinnate-leaved European perennial having bright blue or white flowers)
- S: (n) charity (an institution set up to provide help to the needy)
So, compiling the other three definitions, the type of charity we are discussing is supplying aid (financially or physically) to large-scale foundations our institutions set up with the express purpose of helping the needy.
The question is, should these charities exist, and is it right or beneficial to donate to them? The people it helps are on the lowest rungs of society, and don't give anything back in the form of social good. Social Darwinists would describe them as "unfit", and argue that by helping the unfit survive, social and technological progress is halted. Helping the "unfit" survive is ensuring that there will be countless more generations of poor citizens with a negative social value to weigh down the "fit". The "race of life" in Capitalism is inherently unfair: Nobody starts out equally, and nobody should expect a fair finish.
Is that correct? Or does every human have enough value to be given aid? Does a crack whore deserve to be on equal footing with the president? Are handouts okay, or should all aid be given to helping to educate people to better themselves? Do people who are well-off have a moral obligation to assist those who are needy? At the end of the day, are people actually helped by charity, or are charities just slapping a big band-aid over a much bigger problem?
You can decide for yourself which institutions to talk about, but make sure you express where the aid is allocated: Straight handouts, education programs, etc. Also, don't feel like you are constrained to only discuss private institutions, welfare and unemployment are certainly types of charity -albeit forced charity- as well!
I hope this thread doesn't make anybody too cynical to enjoy the holidays. (: Have a great break/vacation/relaxing time over the next few days!
8 comments:
Ideally, I'd say that in the case of charity... in the three definitions we mean to argue, is unnecessary. I mean more that, where our democratic countries(or at least the flavor of country that would even consider charity), our governments are "set up" to allow "equal" treatment to all.
Based on this assumption, there's no reason for any charity, and for arguments sake, I'll bring up the example of hurricane Katrina. While not necessarily what some may have thought of when they read charity, it clearly fits the bill.
Now, New Orleans is full of people who don't think less of living below sea level. The first time something off the charts horrible happened to the city(Katrina), they became fully aware of how awful an idea it was to live there. And then they rebuilt anyway. I can understand charity in the case of Katrina, and I think no matter how cold or cynical you are, we can pretty much agree that something pretty much had to be done. However, I can't think of a good reason to do it again, after they've realized how awful an idea the continued existence of a city below sea level is. I guess I'm just a little to cold and cynical for that.
On the other hand, there are charitable foundations like the Red Cross, which for the most part collects blood so that we actually have some to use in our advanced age of medicine. They also do things like help out with Katrina and other disasters, however this was a secondary purpose that people in the organization who are, again, less cold and cynical then myself, thought up.
Frankly, I realize that in the case of the poor, good ol' America's system isn't flying too high. As a matter of fact, it's not that great at all. While it is perfectly plausible for people to work their way up from the lowest of lows financially, the reason we never see it happen is because the people who have the drive, determination, and ability to do such are usually born higher up on the money chain. Perhaps this is because economic background influences us more than we realize as people, but I can't help but think that maybe the people who can bring about change are poor, are destitute, and don't have the resources to do much of anything.
Isn't it in our best interest to give these folk a chance to do great things? I'm not saying that we should give them a car, keys to a house, oh, and maybe a wife too. I just don't think there's any reasons against independent charities, as long as there are people willing to give, and while I'm no expert on America's treatment of the poor, I think it does need an upgrade. Poor people can have brilliant ideas too.
First of all, let me dispense with the idea of "Government Charity." As Mike T said, Welfare and Unemployment are "Forced Charity"--which is a contradiction in terms--It ain't charity if it's forced. In fact, welfare and unemployment and such are at the least Theft from the folks who pay for it; however, I would argue that they are in fact slavery--involuntary servitude. If the fruits of your labor are taken from you to benefit others without your consent, and especially done so on a regular basis as opposed to a single isolated incident, this is Slavery.
If I were to hold a gun to your head and demand your money, that would be theft. If I were to threaten to use a gun if you didn't give me your money, that would be theft. If I were to tell you that unless you gave me 50% of your earnings every week, and if you fail to do so, I will come and take you to a cage and lock you up; and should you resist my efforts to kidnap you, I would use any force necessary, up to and including lethal force, to enforce my will upon you, that would be slavery. It doesn't matter if afterward I promised I'd give a portion of the money (remember, the government has to pay for all those bureaucrats and enforcers)I forcibly extracted from you to someone who "really needs it."
Now then, real charity. First of all, what you do with your property is no one's business but your own, so long as you do not initiate aggression. If you want to give it to someone who hasn't "earned" it, that's fine. In fact, I encourage folks to be generous--it can help others, and it's good karma. Also, much of the time it gives folks a good feeling to help others--I know it does me.
I have a few small charities I donate to from time to time, but I am very careful about those I choose, for a number of reasons.
A lot of the big charities--e.g. Red Cross, American Heart Association, March of Dimes, etc. have become big businesses. There's nothing wrong with that as such, but these days most of the funds they raise go to overhead and "Education" (education is the cover for "fund raising" in their budgets). For example, several years back I looked at the financial statement for the AHA. They raised over $750 Million that year. They spent $36 Million on research--their stated goal. They spent $700 Million plus on raising that $36 Million for research. Hell, that almost looks like a government operation (well, except that approximately 98% of government welfare spending is "overhead").
A lot of scams cover themselves as charities. You should be careful to research a charity before you donate to them--make sure you aren't just paying for some con man to live large.
A lot of strange cults raise funds as charities. These cults may be using the funds to engage in activities you don't agree with, or which may be actually harmful.
Some charities are based on using the funds to lobby government to direct their guns in a particular way based on some strange belief the members of the charity have. For example, a lot of so-called environmental groups spend the money they raise to pay for lobbyists who convince politicians to establish large bureaucratic agencies and pass laws which destroy businesses, peoples lives, and the environment! The biggest polluter in the US is the US Government--and that's before accounting for all the "Green House Gases" emitted by the politicians, and all the trees killed to print out the millions of pages of laws and regulations at the Federal level.
The old adage "Give a man a fish..." is absolutely true. Be careful in your charitable giving--try to do the best that can be done with it. Find a cause you can support fully, investigate the charitable organization to ensure it's reputable and honest, and then give of your money and your time as you can. You'll feel good, you'll accomplish something, and you'll make others feel good. You'll rack up good karma, and someday, you might need help yourself.
Mike, I'm not going to comment on anything your wrote right now, mainly because there's a Victoria's Secret catalog I need to peruse, but I feel it's my duty to argue with Mike Ruff, because him be saying some straight dumb shit, yo.
Mike Ruff:
In the first, your assertion that "forced charity is not charity," you are incorrect. There is a handy list of definitions at the top of the article and none of them say anything about charity being something voluntary. In fact, why don't I link to them? There. That right there tears a fatty asshole in your argument against "government charity."
Second, you ought to come up with better words than "theft" and "slavery" to describe the U.S. Government's policy on the collection of income tax. There are already definitions to those words, neither of which include "taxation" or "the punishment for avoiding taxation." Furthermore, since the government determines what is and isn't crime, regardless of what words you come up with to replace "theft" and "slavery" you will be wrong in your implied statement that the government is crooked for "stealing" one's money and those who fail to pay become "slaves." When the government as a whole does it, with leave of the people (lovely, living in a republic) it is never a crime. Dick.
Third, the reason that it is our moral obligation to provide welfare etc... is to keep people from starving. When people are starving, they will not listen to reason or laws, they will commit crime to eat. If enough people are starving, they will revolt. After they revolt, they will take much more than the 45% your daddy loses off the top of his million bucks reported income a year: they'll take it all, including your life.
Now, assuming that revolt were impossible, it would still be our moral obligation to provide welfare to allow people to not have to work 3 or 4 jobs (like any professional dishwasher or busboy in California), which will allow them to spend more time with their children, hopefully teaching their kids to do their homework and study hard.
The reason for which they study is irrelevant so long as they do it, because we live in a society in which everyone has the right to vote (assuming he didn't disqualify himself with stupid) and the only way to ensure free elections is to keep the people educated and fed. The spoils system in the Northeast during the 19th century was a clear example of democracy being destroyed by hunger. I'll let you look that up or this already long article will go on for days. As for the need of education in a democratic society, look to this past election season in which lies and blatant, disgusting demagoguery held sway over nearly half the American population. Hell, look at the statistics for how many people still thought Obama was Muslim after the Reverend Wright thing. That's just stupidity, but stupidity that surely influenced the ways that some uneducated people voted, giving up their choice simply because they were afraid of muslims. And black people.
But I rant. I forget what I was talking about, but I seem to remember thinking about your inability to articulate a decent idea.
By the way, er'body check out the VIctoria's Secret Semi-annual sale 2008, Vol 1, p. 26. I <3 pushup bras.
Key--
"Democracy" is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
I'll try to keep this simple--and not be insulting about it.
From whence do "legitimate" governments derive their just powers and authorities? Well, if you read the documents upon which the US was founded, that would be from the people.
THEREFORE:
If I were to take your money without your consent, (the use to which I put it afterward is irrelevant), that would be theft. Correct?
If I and one of my friends were to take your money without your consent, that would be theft. Correct?
If I and 10 of my friends were to take your money without your consent, that would be theft. Correct?
If I and 1 million of my friends were to take your money without your consent, that would be theft. Correct?
Now, in any of the above cases, if I and my group of friends were to say: "Hey, instead of us beating you up and taking your money, we'll just count fists. Whoever has the greatest number of fists on their side can be considered to be the ones who would win in a fight, so that group gets the money." That would still be theft. Correct?
Now, if I and the same group were to write on a piece of paper that any time we make a rule, because we can gather more fists together than you can, you have to do what we write on the piece of paper. Does that somehow magically make it morally right that we do so?
Can we then do anything we want, so long as we make sure we have more fists and write our magical incantations on pieces of paper?
Furthermore:
1. "Moral" and "Legal" are not synonymous. Everything the Nazis did in Germany during the 1930s and '40s was LEGAL--they had been "democratically elected" and made sure they had laws written down to back up what they did.
2. Dictionaries are written and published by men, and are thus fallible. They do not constitute the final authority on the definition of a word--they are merely meant to be a useful guide for those who are unsure as to the meaning of a word that is new to them. Pointing to the dictionary and claiming this is absolute proof for anything other than the contents thereof is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority."
3. Government has nothing of its own--anything government gives to one person or group, it must first take from another person or group.
4. Slavery--the definition of slavery as per the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution is "Involuntary Servitude." Granted, the source is not authoritative linguistically, but for legal purposes it is authoritative--as the government claims legitimacy based upon the document. Thus, any services--or the product of any services--demanded by force, threat of force, implied threat of force, or cloaked implied threat of force is, allowing for the repetition of such demands, by definition "Slavery." Quod erat demonstrandum.
5. Obligations cannot be imposed upon individuals without their leave. To deny this is to deny self-ownership. If you deny self-ownership, then I ask: "Who owns you? And can I buy their ownership of you?" I'll leave this discussion there, and see what you come up with on this point. Again I maintain that the need of one person does not constitute a mortgage upon the life of another.
6. As for your implied insult, to whit: "...they will take much more than the 45% your daddy loses off the top of his million bucks reported income a year: they'll take it all, including your life."
You don't know me. You seem to be laboring under the impression that I'm some spoiled college kid from a rich family who hates and fears the poor and doesn't know what he's talking about. So here's a bit of my background: I am a 10 year veteran of the US Army, having enlisted the day after I turned 17. I have degrees in History, Philosophy, Classics, and a few other areas, and have spent a lot of time in post-grad studies in Economics and Praxeology. I work seven days a week--I am a Mediator, a Security Consultant, a Private Tutor, a Firearms Instructor, and I have several other occasional jobs that fill up the extra time. I read 1200 words per minute, and generally polish off a book a day--and have done so pretty consistently from the time I was in 5th grade or so. I spend my Summers working in a program for "At Risk" boys in NH, and volunteer with two schools during the rest of the year. I've lived in every state on the East Coast of the US at least once, plus several others, plus several foreign countries. I have worked at jobs from janitor to corporate executive, with great success in all. So, without going into detail on further biographical background, I think it's safe to say that I'm not some spoiled punk kid who doesn't have a clue--and I'll thank you to remember as much in any further debates we may have.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."
- John Wayne as John Bernard Book
I think folks should read this.
http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/rogues/gp/micropiece.html
Heh.
Key, do try to repress your penchant for personal attacks.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with your idea about a moral obligation to help the poor, because it intertwines economics with education and it assumes that everybody has the drive and ability to become an intellectual. That simply isn't true: Some people just do not have the faculties required to be a college scholar. What's more, the world- even democracies- needs dishwashers and busboys. I don't think it's my moral responsibility to make sure everybody can be raised up to an equal educational level. Now that may suck from an idealist standpoint, but it smacks of necessity from a pragmatic one.
People can't be equal educationally because people are not equal intellectually. People can't be equal economically because people are not equal educationally. Why should I, as a hard-working, college-educated man be required to give up a portion of my earnings to a leech of society? I'm not a hard man, and I'll gladly give a portion to a charity of my choosing, but why should I be forced to give a handout to (for all I really know) some crackhead?
And really, at the end of the day, what's wrong with Social Darwinism? If people can't cut it, then they get weeded out. Think of allllll the money the Government has allocated to aid and welfare. If that money could have gone to scientific research, think of the advances that could have been made! Why should I even be forced to TOLERATE the existence of hoodrats and slum lords, let alone be forced to support them?
If I have a moral obligation to help the poor as you claim, shouldn't I be the one in charge of how that aid gets allocated, especially because it is my time and money?
Well. Since I don't really know any of these people, I won't comment specifically on what they all said. But I will say that I totally disagree with Social Darwinism, and therefore, many Republicans. Why should the poor be left to die? How can we conclusively say "they're unworthy of help" or "they aren't trying"? We can't say that at all. I'm living below the poverty line, but my family all has jobs, it's just that they don't pay well enough. My brother has a college degree and it's not helping him at all. So even though we're intelligent, and are trying to make a better life for ourselves, we're somehow not worthy of being helped. Now, we're not at the point where we need charity, but if we were, I would be pretty upset if someone told me that I wasn't good enough for it. That if only my family was more proactive and responsible, ten we'd be rich already. Just because capitalism and life are inherantly unfair does not mean that people should also be. I feel that direct aid should be given to people. Education can only get you so far. If you can't get anywhere, you can't get anywhere. The only thing to do is keep someone going until they get a break. Giving them food and clothes etc. is a good way to do it. If we were at war, and we saw a wounded comrade lying there, we wouldn't tell him "If you were more proactive, you' drag yourself back to an aid sation and fix your own wounds," would we? What the hell happened to caring about other people? Why is it that greed and "I earned this money, so screw everyone else," is the doctrine of today? And why is it that anyonme who disagrees is a communist? I think communists are insane if they really think communism can work. I just think we should go out and help those who need it, as directly as possible. And if we need to tax people a little more to help other people, then so be it. The people who have billions of dollars aren't going to mind losing a couple thousand dollars. Hell, at one point in England, the top 1 percent of earners only got to keep 10% of what they made or something. (Which is what the song Taxman is about) We're not even close to that. I think we can force some people to pay some taxes to some charities so long as it's nothing like that. And yes, I'd be willing to contribute some of my money, if I had enough to contribute.
I have to say, though it may the coldest position on the matter, I have to agree with Mike T. Sometimes being rational entails being a little harsh. Social Darwinism, although a little radical by nature, is not something that should be ultimately abolished. If there is one thing that humans have learned, it is that those who do nothing are often content with it. Weening someone slowly off of welfare instead of throwing money at them will force them in time to become productive to their own survival.
As far as people not being intellectually equal, I must agree with Mr. Todaro again. The sad realization that the intelligent members of society must come to is; no matter how hard we may try to encourage education, and worldliness, most will reject it to live in ignorance. Simply because, ignorance is simple, and that refusal to take every problem seriously will undoubtedly result in extinction.
Charity is not inherently a bad idea. But it must be done carefully so as not to allow the "leeches" to feast eternally on the hard-earned money of productive people.
Post a Comment