You know what question I'd love a moderator to ask at these GOP-a-paloozas?

[phantom power]

I realize that this is an utter fantasy, like any insightful, useful, and/or non-softball "debate" question, but: Whenever one of these GOP philosopher kings starts to wax on about "When I was a boy, we solved our problems with Churches and Charity and Bootstraps and stuff!" I have this pipe dream that the moderator will ask:

"So Mr. Paul, why is it appropriate, or better, for people to cooperate and help each other via a Church government/bureaucracy instead of cooperating via the federal government?"

Related:

"Why is it preferable for us to deal with a private corporation bureaucracy, whose explicit motivation is profit, as opposed to a federal govt bureaucracy, whose madate is from the people?"

[pacalo]

1. And how would churches/charities go about helping those who are disabled, for one

example, on a continuous basis? Would giving through churches/charities to those who are unable to work -- & there are many -- lessen the anger of those who resent their taxes being used to help the disabled? Would it lead to a "neighborhood watch" mindset & resentment against those who are receiving the charities?

[shurleys]

2. Reaction

The confusion arises when you consider the nature of the money the Gov. stores.

Why is it better to ask for charity off of a private institution rather than a government one?

Well, the government obliges people to pay into it; private institutions have no such power. If you don't pay your taxes, you can go to prison; if you don't help out a charity , you are a dick.

So the question really is: should charity be obligatory? or not?

If the gov. legislates charity; you have to ask: who decides where it legislates? imagine being anti-abortion, and to have your money spent on an abortion clinic! or being anti-abstinence, and having your money spent on an abstinence only program! its absurd.

That is why, we should have a choice: as long as the revenue used to pay for charity is obligatory, it might as well be robbery.

Id gladly pay into a charity I believe is worth it; but, if a sick 30 year old comes up to me, and TELLS me its my duty to pay for part of his treatment, and that I can be prosecuted if I don't--well, I think I might be rude to him.

That is part of the libertarian philosophy: charity is a choice, not an obligation.

[phantom power]

3. Welcom to DU! I don't find that argument very useful, and here's why:

First of all, nobody is ever, ever going to be happy with all the things that a govt does with tax money. Libertarians and other Republicans object to "charity." Well, I object to endless war and subsidies for fossil fuel companies and no-bid defense contracts. So it goes.

Second, "charities" have a lot of economic benefits. Libertarians and other Republicans like to frame social services as some kind of money hole, when in fact societies with social safety nets benefit everybody, not just the people who are receiving benefits at the time.

[Fumesucker]

4. Welcome to DU..

I hope you enjoy your stay.

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Imagine being anti-war, and having your money spent on the military! Just imagine!

Imagine being anti-road, and having your money spent on roads! Or, pro-fire, and having to pay for fire departments!!!

See, while principles of libertarianism are fine and justifiable and certainly preferable to excessive government control, particularly in peoples' personal lives and choices- (say, if people want to use birth control, get an abortion, or smoke a relatively benign plant in the privacy of their own home, for instance) the fact is that as a society we have certain collective responsibilities and certain functions that are performed not on an individual level but again, as a society.

And since we're living in reality and not, say, an Ayn Rand novel, compromises must be made between total I-am-an-Island individuality and collective responsibility. Take health insurance, for instance. The concept of health insurance, in and of itself, is fundamentally anti-individualistic. The very reason for health insurance in the first place is that the people who get really really really sick are often the least able to work and make money to pay their medical bills. And we also have made a collective decision that if a very sick person shows up at a hospital, doctors will try to save their life rather than make them pay up front. So, we need health insurance, or we've decided it's a good idea. A BETTER idea, from a financial perspective as well as a collective, moral one, is to make the health insurance pool include everyone, everyone pays into it and everyone is equally covered. This is a single payer system and, alas, nothing we're likely to see in this country any time soon. Yet it would reflect the concept that while we value and respect individual freedom and choice, some things are more sensibly handled as a collective endeavour and responsibility.

Because guess what. You and me are going to pay for that sick, uninsured poor person anyway when they show up at the emergency room, but it's going to be 10 times as expensive, particularly since they haven't had any preventative care.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

8. Let 'em die in the streets, huh? What great compassion.

It's their fault, you know. Calvinism and all that. :sarcasm:


Don't drive on a public road, and don't buy anything, because you will have to pay sales tax.

Don't take unemployment benefits, don't take social security or medicare. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire; fire departments are socialist!!!

Don't call the cops either when violence has occurred on your property; police departments are socialist too!! All these things are funded by property taxes and sales taxes and various fees.

Enjoy living in America!!!

[madmom]

10. Do you really honestly believe religious charities get all their money from

peoples donations? They get most of their "charity" monies from the federal government, ie taxpayers money.



http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=102700018

http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

http://philanthropy.com/article/Obama-Would-Continue-Federa/61424/



imagine being anti organized religion and having your money spent on organized religion.

[MatthewStLouis]

11. What is wrong with a social contract where we all pay in and society as a whole benefits?

We all pay taxes. Those who reap the most benefits from our society pay more in taxes. We all share the social 'safety net'. If you are disabled: we have your back. If you are a child: you should not go hungry. If you are elderly and run out of money: you shouldn't have to be a beggar. These are all good things. No one in this day and age (not even haughty republicans who want to pick and choose who gets help) wants to see children, the disabled, and the elderly begging on our streets. They like to argue that churches and charities will take care of these people. Families will take in their grandparents. But guess what? It's all a fantasy! There aren't enough churches in the country to take care of all these people. No one I know, wants to, or even has the means to take in their parents and grandparents....

I like some of the ideas of libertarianism. People should be free to do as they choose (within reason). But the idea that every man is an island unto himself is ludicrous. We all drive on public roads and use public goods and services...

Republicans/libertarians should stop trying to destroy our government and our nation and start trying to make it work more fairly and efficiently.

[geardaddy]

12. Then the motto of libertarianism must be:

I got mine, fuck off.

[MisterP]

13. it's almost like it's a philosophy devised by an admirer of a slasher and amoral sociopath

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

[geardaddy]

14. Yup.

I learned about that here on DU. :hi:

[surrealAmerican]

15. Have you looked at this from the other side?

What if you're the poor person who needs help? The local charity might decide to help, but they might not. Perhaps your neighbors are too poor to help out, or maybe they never liked your politics or religion or family, and don't care if you live or die. What's left for you then?

On edit:
Welcome to DU. I'm glad you posted this; it's something we should all be discussing.

[MicaelS]

5. I asked a Conservative this very question....

The answer I got back was this:

"With private charity, those who give, can decide what, where and how to much to give. We, and the private charities, can also choose to when, where, and from whom to withhold help, if we decide some people are lazy and simply not willing to work. People who are capable, and not willing to work, should not eat. It's that simple."

Very revealing don't you think?

[bbgrunt]

6. that is the essential question. nt

[butterfly77]

9. K&R..