Will Charities REALLY Take Care of the Poor?

[DeadheadForPaul]

We often make the case that the entitlement system will be replaced by charity on the part of individuals and organizations

But how many people here give to charity?

I'm sure some will make the case that the government already steals their charity money (forced charity) and that's why they don't donate

And that's a legitimate argument

But I wonder how many would give to charity if there were 0% taxes

Answer honestly in the poll

[Kludge]

Care will be given by a moral society, not a moral system of government.

This question cannot be answered without a lot of bullshit.

However, I do recall a Stossel 20/20 segment showing Republicans tend to donate more to charity than Democrats.

(Does "Once or Twice" mean once or twice in a lifetime or 1-2 times per week, or month, or year, or what?)


Edit: and it may not be fair to poll the extremely politically active who are so zealous that they probably believe their political contributions are charitable contributions and pump almost all their money into political campaigns.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Care will be given by a moral society, not a moral system of government.

This question cannot be answered without a lot of bullshit.

However, I do recall a Stossel 20/20 segment showing Republicans tend to donate more to charity than Democrats.

You're right - more conservative states tend to give more than liberal states too.

But will we step up to the plate when the need is there?

I think most of us here would rally together like we do here and fix wrongs

[Sentient Void]

I would definitely donate the charities more. I donate a little now, but so much of my money is taken as is, I can't afford much more...

Also, before the existence of the welfare state in the US, charities (like mutual aid societies) and the *family* especially were very effective in handling unemployment, senior citizens, etc - much moreso than the govt.

Now, families feel like they are less responsible for eachother because of govt welfare, unemployment, etc - and mutual aid societies have all but disappeared.

[brenden.b]

I give to charities with regularity and it isn't because of the tax write off benefits, which I don't even receive because I don't make enough.

For some insane reason, the government and some people, terrifyingly so, believe that the IRS tax code is needed to encourage giving to charities.

This, of course, is one of the biggest fallacies in the modern world.

[tremendoustie]

We often make the case that the entitlement system will be replaced by charity on the part of individuals and organizations

But how many people here give to charity?

I'm sure some will make the case that the government already steals their charity money (forced charity) and that's why they don't donate

And that's a legitimate argument

But I wonder how many would give to charity if there were 0% taxes

Answer honestly in the poll

I give frequently now, but I would give far more if there were no taxes, not only to help those in need, but to help establish and demonstrate a successful and compassionate free society.

[Imaginos]

I give to charities only when I am sure that people who get it, actually deserve it.
I don't believe in indiscriminate charity to everybody.
I can't help people without self esteem or will power.
And I do not think anyone can.
But I can be generous if I believe the person really deserves help.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm truly thankful for the responses to this thread

One of my biggest fears is that we actually get to try out this freedom thing, and it falls flat on its face

The truth is that freedom would fail without enough caring, productive, responsible citizens.

Luckily, the majority of RPFers are in that mold, and as the remnant, we are all that remains to rebuild this society and set an example

As for the indiscriminate charity thing - I agree.

I very rarely give money to a random homeless person on the street. I would love to find a charity that trains/educates homeless people and turns them into productive citizens

The best bang for the buck in my opinion: charity that supports medical research

I do go on medical/dental mission trips and provide care for third world country folk too
=========

I would love to hear who you guys support. I will def look into those groups and see if I want to support them too

Mine:
1.) Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center (http://www.adarc.org/)
2.) Red Cross
3.) Christian Medical and Dental Association (http://www.cmda.org//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home)

[Kregisen]

I believe with far less taxes you'll see a huge spike in charity.....


HOWEVER, even if charity didn't supply the needs of everybody, that doesn't give the government the right to force someone to give to others. That's just morally wrong.

[TCE]

I do in more ways than one, and if so much of my money wasn't confiscated via taxation, I would give more. A percentage of people don't give now because they believe the government will take care of the poor and any money given is pointless. If the perception was that the government did not help anyone, more people would be likely to give.

[michaelwise]

I only give locally. Keeping your money from organized charities is a good way to protest the federal government's actions.

[DeadheadForPaul]

In agreement with all of the above

[devil21]

Bad thread title since the poll is different than the title. I give to charity but usually on a personal level, not just turning over money to an organization.

There needs to be some distinction on what "poor" means though. Will charities help someone keep their cable tv on? NO! Nor should they. When we talk about charities helping the poor, we're talking about people that are on the edge. No food, shelter, etc. Not the majority of the "poor" people in this country that still have a roof over their heads and something to eat and maybe even a cell phone. It's kinda like what Rand was talking about earlier this week about how American "poor" are much better off than the rest of the world's "poor". You can't really discuss this issue without being more specific about what "poor" means.

[tremendoustie]

I very rarely give money to a random homeless person on the street.


I always used to be conflicted about this, but now, if someone asks for money, I offer to buy them food at the nearest shop/supermarket. It gives me a chance to talk to them, and show them some genuine care. And, if they just want money for booze or dope, or they're professional panhandlers, they turn me down, so it filters those folks out. You might try it, if you're worried about getting taken advantage of.



I would love to hear who you guys support. I will def look into those groups and see if I want to support them too


Project Amazon water filter project: http://www.projectamazon.org/the-mission/ministries/
Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/
Doctors without borders: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
Royal family kid's camp: http://store.lakeave.org/p-154-royal-family-kids-camp-rfkc.aspx

For liberty activism:
CD Evolution: http://cdevolution.org/
Free Keene: http://freekeene.com/
FTL AMP: http://www.freetalklive.com/amp
Mail to Jail: http://www.mail-to-jail.com/
Porc 411: http://nh.porcupine411.com/
NH Liberty alliance: http://www.nhliberty.org/

Also, recently: http://gregsurbey.com/
And lawson, but you probably already know about him

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, they REALLY will take care of those in need. Who are they? They are us. Human beings really are giving and caring. The majority of humans are not the nativist, barbarian hordes Hobbes imagined. Those are reserved for the people who envitably and invariably arise to the top of the Statist system. They are the persecuted minority in a free society.

You have lived under this wretched system for so long, and so many generations have passed people have forgotten what was once common knowledge. It took merely 100 years for the complete and total loss. :(

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/friendly-societies-voluntary-social-security-and-more/#

http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html

Everything and anything the State has ever done, has been done better in a voluntary free fashion. Your shackles are a curse, not a blessing. Bah, but who am I to prosleytize. I remember.

PS: This is why I never really liked Ayn. The hermit individualist non-division of labor, never appealed to me, nor would I ever want to live in such a society.

[nunaem]

Justice, Not Charity

Henry George
[An excerpt from the book, The Condition of Labor, reprinted from The Freeman, November, 1939]


Charity is indeed a noble and beautiful virtue, grateful to man and approved by God. But charity must be built on justice. It cannot supersede justice. What is wrong with the condition of labor through the Christian world is that labor is robbed. And while we justify the continuance o£ that robbery it is idle to urge charity. To do so -- to commend charity as a substitute for justice, is indeed something akin in essence to those heresies, that taught that the gospel had superseded the law, and that the love of God exempted men from moral obligations.

All that charity can do where injustice exist is here and there to mollify somewhat the effects of Injustice. It cannot cure them. Nor is even what little it can do to mollify the effects of injustice without evil. For what may be called the superimposed, and in this sense, secondary virtues, work evil where the fundamental or primary virtues are absent. Thus sobriety is a virtue and diligence is a virtue. But a sober and diligent thief is all the more dangerous. Thus patience is a virtue. But patience under wrong is the condoning of wrong. Thus it is a virtue to seek knowledge and to endeavor to cultivate the mental powers. But the wicked man becomes more capable of evil by reason of his Intelligence. Devils we always think of as intelligent.

And thus that pseudo-charity that discards and denies justice works evil. On the one side. It demoralizes its recipients, outraging that human dignity which "God himself treats with reverence," and turning into beggars and paupers men who to become self-supporting, self-respecting citizens need only the restitution of what God has given them. On the other side, it acts as an anodyne to the consciences of those who are living on the robbery of their fellows, and fosters that moral delusion and spiritual pride that Christ doubtless had in mind when he said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. For it leads men steeped in injustice, and using their money and their influence to bolster up injustice, to think that in giving alms they are doing something more than their duty toward man and deserve to be very well thought of by God, and in a vague way to attribute to their own goodness what really belongs to God's goodness. For consider: Who is the All-Provider? Who is it that "owes to man a storehouse that shall never fail," and which "he finds only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth." Is it not God? And when, therefore, men, deprived of the bounty of their God. are made dependent on the bounty of their fellow-creatures, are not these creatures, as it were, put In the place of God, to take credit to themselves for paying obligations that God owes?

But worse perhaps than all else is the way in which this substituting of vague injunctions to charity for the clear-cut demands of justice opens an easy means for the professed teachers of the Christian religion of all branches and communions to placate Mammon while persuading themselves that they are serving God. Had the English clergy not subordinated the teaching of justice to the teaching of charity -- to go no further in Illustrating a principle of which the whole history of Christendom from Constantine's time to our own is witness -- the Tudor tyranny would never have arisen, and the separation of the church been averted; had the clergy of France never substituted charity for justice, the monstrous iniquities of the ancient regime would never have brought the horrors of the Great Revolution; and in my own country had those who should have preached justice not satisfied themselves with preaching kindness, chattel slavery could never have demanded the holocaust of our civil war.

As faith without works is dead, as men cannot give to God His due while denying to their fellows the rights He gave them, so charity unsupported by justice can do nothing to solve the problem of the existing condition of labor. Though the rich were to "bestow all their goods to feed the poor and give their bodies to be burned," poverty would continue while property in land continues.

Take the case of the rich man today who is honestly desirous of devoting his wealth to the improvement of the condition of labor. What can he do?

Bestow his wealth, on those who need it? He may help some who deserve it, but will not improve general conditions. And against the good he may do will be the danger of doing harm.

Build churches? Under the shadow of churches poverty festers and the vice that is born of it breeds.

Build schools and colleges? Save as it may lead men to see the iniquity of private property in land, increased education can effect nothing for mere laborers, for as education is diffused the wages of education sink.

Establish hospitals? Why, already it seems to laborers that there are too many seeking work, and to save and prolong life is to add to the pressure.

Build model tenements? Unless he cheapens house accommodations he drives further the class he would benefit, and as he cheapens house accommodations he brings more to seek employment and cheapens wages.

Institute laboratories, scientific schools, workshops for physical experiments? He but stimulates invention and discovery, the very forces that, acting on a society based on private property in land, are crushing labor as between the upper and the nether millstone.

Promote emigration from places where wages are low to places where they are somewhat higher? If he does, even those whom he at first helps to emigrate will soon turn on him to demand that such emigration shall be stopped as reducing their wages.

Give away what land he may have, or refuse to take rent for it, or let it at lower rents than the market price? He will simply make new landowners or partial landowners; he may make some individuals the richer, but he will do nothing to improve the general condition of labor.

Or, bethinking himself of those public-spirited citizens of classic times who spent great sums in improving their native cities, shall he try to beautify the city of his birth or adoption? Let him widen and straighten narrow and crooked streets, let him build parks and erect fountains, let him open tramways and bring in railroads, or in any way make beautiful and attractive his chosen city, and what will be the result? Must it not be that those who appropriate God's bounty will take his also? Will it not be that the value of land will go up, and that the net result of his benefactions will be an increase of rents and a bounty to landowners? Why, even the mere announcement that he is going to do such things will start speculation and send up the value of land by leaps and bounds.

What, then, can the rich man do to improve the condition of labor?

He can do nothing at all except to use his strength for the abolition of the great primary wrong that robs men of their birthright. The justice of God laughs at the attempts of men to substitute anything else for it.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I always used to be conflicted about this, but now, if someone asks for money, I offer to buy them food at the nearest shop/supermarket. It gives me a chance to talk to them, and show them some genuine care. And, if they just want money for booze or dope, or they're professional panhandlers, they turn me down, so it filters those folks out. You might try it, if you're worried about getting taken advantage of.



Project Amazon water filter project: http://www.projectamazon.org/the-mission/ministries/
Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/
Doctors without borders: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
Royal family kid's camp: http://store.lakeave.org/p-154-royal-family-kids-camp-rfkc.aspx

For liberty activism:
CD Evolution: http://cdevolution.org/
Free Keene: http://freekeene.com/
FTL AMP: http://www.freetalklive.com/amp
Mail to Jail: http://www.mail-to-jail.com/
Porc 411: http://nh.porcupine411.com/
NH Liberty alliance: http://www.nhliberty.org/

Also, recently: http://gregsurbey.com/
And lawson, but you probably already know about him

Good choices!
I really like Doctors without Borders - they're probably the next group to make my list.

Project Amazon Water filter sounds awesome

My significant other works for Amnesty...they do a ton of good work but there are a few policies that irk me a little

I keep a small # of charities because if you donate like $50, they waste $25 sending you mass mail every month

As for liberty, YAL and C4L here

[amy31416]

Don't forget volunteering--I've done that quite a bit when I was broke. I generally stick to small, local charities which are often better than the huge ones like Amnesty, etc.

[libertybrewcity]

i barely make enough to support myself, but I do volunteer a decent amount.

[silus]

This is not a simple question that you can just ask... There are fundamental laws at work here. If the government removes its responsibility in supporting folks, it will automatically empower people and enhance their influence and ability to make a difference. I will feel empowered in my responsibility to influence my environment in this regard, and so will a great deal of people.

[nunaem]

Do none of you realize that charity is a band-aid?

[amy31416]

Do none of you realize that charity is a band-aid?

I guess you've never needed help with anything, and anyone who does is a bum?

[nunaem]

I guess you've never needed help with anything, and anyone who does is a bum?

When I have a disease, I attempt to cure the disease, not the symptoms. If I ever become destitute I would like my benefactor to resolve the cause of my destitution, not provide a temporary fix that insults my independence.

Have you ever wondered why there is poverty? Or do you simply take it for granted?

If you could resolve poverty at its source, instead of creating make-shift alleviations, would you?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

When I have a disease, I attempt to cure the disease, not the symptoms. If I ever become destitute I would like my benefactor to resolve the cause of my destitution, not provide a temporary fix that insults my independence.

Have you ever wondered why there is poverty? Or do you simply take it for granted?

If you could resolve poverty at its source, instead of creating make-shift alleviations, would you?

You are under the assumption that under a total free-market, laissez-faire society there would be no one in need (or no poverty). This is just not the case. While true there would be very minimal poverty and those in need, there will still be people that will need help. There will always be a need for Mutual Aid societies, and it is in our self-interest to cultivate and develop them. I am under no delusion that I will always be employed, or be well to do. I would gladly join such a society, as many others would if there is no Statist safety net.

Yes, we need to tackle the Welfare/Warfare State, but in the meantime we need to develop the institutions that will take over once the State is dealt with.

[nunaem]

You are under the assumption that under a total free-market, laissez-faire society there would be no one in need (or no poverty). This is just not the case. While true there would be very minimal poverty and those in need, there will still be people that will need help. There will always be a need for Mutual Aid societies, and it is in our self-interest to cultivate and develop them. I am under no delusion that I will always be employed, or be well to do. I would gladly join such a society, as many others would if there is no Statist safety net.

Yes, we need to tackle the Welfare/Warfare State, but in the meantime we need to develop the institutions that will take over once the State is dealt with.

Under a just society there would never be an able-bodied man or woman who is willing to work in need of charity, for they would have access to the raw materials needed to apply their labor and make a living.

For the disabled and the like, charity is good and necessary. Giving charity instead of work to the abled, though, is an insult.

[amy31416]

When I have a disease, I attempt to cure the disease, not the symptoms. If I ever become destitute I would like my benefactor to resolve the cause of my destitution, not provide a temporary fix that insults my independence.

Have you ever wondered why there is poverty? Or do you simply take it for granted?

If you could resolve poverty at its source, instead of creating make-shift alleviations, would you?

In your perfect world there is no mental instability, serious illness, children or elderly who might need help?

And no, of course I've never wondered why there is poverty and I wouldn't resolve it at the source if I could. :rolleyes:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Under a just society there would never be an able-bodied man or woman who is willing to work in need of charity, for they would have access to the raw materials needed to apply their labor and make a living.

For the disabled and the like, charity is good and necessary. Giving charity instead of work to the willing and able, though, is an insult.

Yes, because natural disasters never happen. I understand where you are trying to come from, but in a free society one would not give unduly to those able to work. Besides, Mutual Aid societies are like private, voluntary safety nets to which I would absolutely be a part of and many others too.

[nunaem]

Yes, because natural disasters never happen. I understand where you are trying to come from, but in a free society one would not give unduly to those able to work. Besides, Mutual Aid societies are like private, voluntary safety nets to which I would absolutely be a part of and many others too.

By able I mean able to improve their own situation if given the opportunity, victims of natural disasters do not qualify.

[Zippyjuan]

When I have a disease, I attempt to cure the disease, not the symptoms. If I ever become destitute I would like my benefactor to resolve the cause of my destitution, not provide a temporary fix that insults my independence.

Have you ever wondered why there is poverty? Or do you simply take it for granted?

If you could resolve poverty at its source, instead of creating make-shift alleviations, would you?
I get the impression you have never experienced difficulties in you life- no tragedies or being unable to find a job. Still living with the folks? It is true that sometimes charity can be counterproductive to its intentions- such as the food relief in Haiti which while it helped temporarily but eventually discouraged Haiti from producing their own food, the temporary help was indeed critical and helpful to the survival of many hundreds probably. That does not mean there should be no aid ever offered.

My own cousin was stuck in a house in New Orleans during Katrina and was going to nearby houses to try to steal food to eat. She was grateful when she finally got help (from family mostly). If the cause of your destitution is the loss of your home is the only aid you would accept a new home? Or would you rather have some food and water so that you can live long enough to find a new dwelling? If you were injured in an accident and was unable to work is the only aid you would expect medical treatment to return you to 100%? If your town was leveled by a tornado or hurricane or earthquake what sort of help would you like to have? Your home, your source of employment, and even the local grocery stores gone. Would you prefer that we leave you alone to fend for yourself? If you lose your job should you expect to get a comparable job or would you accept any job since having a job was the source of your not being destitute. Would you go from being say an engineer and be then willing to sweep floors at McDonalds for minimum wage? You got an offer to replace the cause of your destitution. Would you accept it? It is a job and you are able bodied.

I understand the desire for people to take personal responsiblity and do whatever is in their own power to try to remedy their situation- but sometimes that is out of their control and aid is apropriate if you are a compasionate human being.

People don't necessarily choose to be poor. Poor happens. Sometimes you inherit it- sometimes it is bestowed upon you. Or you can choose it too. It will never go away. The former USSR officially had no unemployment. Anybody who could work was required to. Yet many people were poor. There are many people out there today who would like to have work and are able bodied. Yet they cannot find it. Life is not just. Society is not just. Mostly your lot depends a lot on luck.


Giving charity instead of work to the abled, though, is an insult.

If I were to give you job because you were destitute yet able, wouldn't that still be a form of charity?

[nunaem]

In your perfect world there is no mental instability, serious illness, children or elderly who might need help?


Yes, but in my world these people would comprise the entirety of the recipients of charity as opposed to being in the minority of the recipients of welfare and charity as in the present world.

[KurtBoyer25L]

There is, in fact, the existence of bad luck, and some people do have advantages over other people financially. That doesn't mean we should invent a means of force & group coercion by which to try to "correct" that, but it does mean that sometimes deserving individuals lose out and suffer from poverty or stagnation. Also, there are the expediencies pointed out by other posters -- accidents, medical emergencies, etc.

I'm in the minority but I think at this point the government *should* "do something" about the poor and unlucky, since the government is really the reason for most of the suffering. But they could set up charity shelter/hospitals in every city for a small fraction of what is currently spent on war and weapons. In layman's terms, they could take 100% of the empire/aggressive war budget, use 10% of it to take care of Americans who are beaten down by inflation, unemployment and other products of state control, and give the other 90% back to the people it was stolen from.

[nunaem]

I seem to be misunderstood. Perhaps I need to repost this:



Justice, Not Charity

Henry George
[An excerpt from the book, The Condition of Labor, reprinted from The Freeman, November, 1939]


Charity is indeed a noble and beautiful virtue, grateful to man and approved by God. But charity must be built on justice. It cannot supersede justice. What is wrong with the condition of labor through the Christian world is that labor is robbed. And while we justify the continuance o£ that robbery it is idle to urge charity. To do so -- to commend charity as a substitute for justice, is indeed something akin in essence to those heresies, that taught that the gospel had superseded the law, and that the love of God exempted men from moral obligations.

All that charity can do where injustice exist is here and there to mollify somewhat the effects of Injustice. It cannot cure them. Nor is even what little it can do to mollify the effects of injustice without evil. For what may be called the superimposed, and in this sense, secondary virtues, work evil where the fundamental or primary virtues are absent. Thus sobriety is a virtue and diligence is a virtue. But a sober and diligent thief is all the more dangerous. Thus patience is a virtue. But patience under wrong is the condoning of wrong. Thus it is a virtue to seek knowledge and to endeavor to cultivate the mental powers. But the wicked man becomes more capable of evil by reason of his Intelligence. Devils we always think of as intelligent.

And thus that pseudo-charity that discards and denies justice works evil. On the one side. It demoralizes its recipients, outraging that human dignity which "God himself treats with reverence," and turning into beggars and paupers men who to become self-supporting, self-respecting citizens need only the restitution of what God has given them. On the other side, it acts as an anodyne to the consciences of those who are living on the robbery of their fellows, and fosters that moral delusion and spiritual pride that Christ doubtless had in mind when he said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. For it leads men steeped in injustice, and using their money and their influence to bolster up injustice, to think that in giving alms they are doing something more than their duty toward man and deserve to be very well thought of by God, and in a vague way to attribute to their own goodness what really belongs to God's goodness. For consider: Who is the All-Provider? Who is it that "owes to man a storehouse that shall never fail," and which "he finds only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth." Is it not God? And when, therefore, men, deprived of the bounty of their God. are made dependent on the bounty of their fellow-creatures, are not these creatures, as it were, put In the place of God, to take credit to themselves for paying obligations that God owes?

But worse perhaps than all else is the way in which this substituting of vague injunctions to charity for the clear-cut demands of justice opens an easy means for the professed teachers of the Christian religion of all branches and communions to placate Mammon while persuading themselves that they are serving God. Had the English clergy not subordinated the teaching of justice to the teaching of charity -- to go no further in Illustrating a principle of which the whole history of Christendom from Constantine's time to our own is witness -- the Tudor tyranny would never have arisen, and the separation of the church been averted; had the clergy of France never substituted charity for justice, the monstrous iniquities of the ancient regime would never have brought the horrors of the Great Revolution; and in my own country had those who should have preached justice not satisfied themselves with preaching kindness, chattel slavery could never have demanded the holocaust of our civil war.

As faith without works is dead, as men cannot give to God His due while denying to their fellows the rights He gave them, so charity unsupported by justice can do nothing to solve the problem of the existing condition of labor. Though the rich were to "bestow all their goods to feed the poor and give their bodies to be burned," poverty would continue while property in land continues.

Take the case of the rich man today who is honestly desirous of devoting his wealth to the improvement of the condition of labor. What can he do?

Bestow his wealth, on those who need it? He may help some who deserve it, but will not improve general conditions. And against the good he may do will be the danger of doing harm.

Build churches? Under the shadow of churches poverty festers and the vice that is born of it breeds.

Build schools and colleges? Save as it may lead men to see the iniquity of private property in land, increased education can effect nothing for mere laborers, for as education is diffused the wages of education sink.

Establish hospitals? Why, already it seems to laborers that there are too many seeking work, and to save and prolong life is to add to the pressure.

Build model tenements? Unless he cheapens house accommodations he drives further the class he would benefit, and as he cheapens house accommodations he brings more to seek employment and cheapens wages.

Institute laboratories, scientific schools, workshops for physical experiments? He but stimulates invention and discovery, the very forces that, acting on a society based on private property in land, are crushing labor as between the upper and the nether millstone.

Promote emigration from places where wages are low to places where they are somewhat higher? If he does, even those whom he at first helps to emigrate will soon turn on him to demand that such emigration shall be stopped as reducing their wages.

Give away what land he may have, or refuse to take rent for it, or let it at lower rents than the market price? He will simply make new landowners or partial landowners; he may make some individuals the richer, but he will do nothing to improve the general condition of labor.

Or, bethinking himself of those public-spirited citizens of classic times who spent great sums in improving their native cities, shall he try to beautify the city of his birth or adoption? Let him widen and straighten narrow and crooked streets, let him build parks and erect fountains, let him open tramways and bring in railroads, or in any way make beautiful and attractive his chosen city, and what will be the result? Must it not be that those who appropriate God's bounty will take his also? Will it not be that the value of land will go up, and that the net result of his benefactions will be an increase of rents and a bounty to landowners? Why, even the mere announcement that he is going to do such things will start speculation and send up the value of land by leaps and bounds.

What, then, can the rich man do to improve the condition of labor?

He can do nothing at all except to use his strength for the abolition of the great primary wrong that robs men of their birthright. The justice of God laughs at the attempts of men to substitute anything else for it.

[Zippyjuan]

Build churches? Under the shadow of churches poverty festers and the vice that is born of it breeds.


Sounds like "poor people hang out near churches- if we don't build the church, there won't be any more poor people since they won't have a place to hang out. Out of sight, out of mind.


Build schools and colleges? Save as it may lead men to see the iniquity of private property in land, increased education can effect nothing for mere laborers, for as education is diffused the wages of education sink.


Building schools does two things. It gives jobs (not charity) to people for the construction and the teachers and administers. The school itself provides education which gives people more skills and thus more able to find a productive job. He sounds concerned that those getting educated might cause the wages of the elite (including himself) to decline. A more educated population is a more productive society and all benefit. More goods available, fewer poor (which I though was the goal). People making more money buy more stuff which means more job opportunites for others to provide those goods.


Establish hospitals? Why, already it seems to laborers that there are too many seeking work, and to save and prolong life is to add to the pressure.


So if people don't have any sort of health care they can die off sooner. More stuff for the rest of us. But as in the case of schools, hospitals create more jobs too. If more people are seeking work, this gives them more opportunities. Is he actually saying we should kill off people without work?


Institute laboratories, scientific schools, workshops for physical experiments? He but stimulates invention and discovery, the very forces that, acting on a society based on private property in land, are crushing labor as between the upper and the nether millstone.

Now it is invention- which is critical for creating new jobs and opportunities for people to use their skills instead of being idle which is "crushing labor"? Creating the problem instead of helping deal with it?

And don't you dare let in immigrants. They will just depress wages and those with money (like the author) might have less of it.

Promote emigration from places where wages are low to places where they are somewhat higher? If he does, even those whom he at first helps to emigrate will soon turn on him to demand that such emigration shall be stopped as reducing their wages.



The article is very elitist. He pretends to be concerned about others but is merely concerned about trying to keep what he has. And he tries to use the Bible to support his position?

"It is simpler for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Or the book of Mathew- Chapter 25:

31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, Mt. 16.27 then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: Mt. 19.28

32 and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 for I was ahungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee ahungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 for I was ahungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee ahungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Dan. 12.2


http://www.bartelby.org/108/40/25.html

[nunaem]

Wow, you are so ironically mistaken I do not know where to begin. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Biography
George was far from elitist or wealthy, he was a populist and the biggest proponent of the poor, he himself almost starved to death along with his family. He even wrote a book on how to rid the world of poverty, Progress and Poverty.(and no, his solution is not killing or ignoring them)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Wow, you are so ironically mistaken I do not know where to begin. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Biography
George was far from elitist or wealthy, he was a populist and the biggest proponent of the poor, he himself almost starved to death along with his family. He even wrote a book on how to rid the world of poverty, Progress and Poverty.(and no, his solution is not killing or ignoring them)

Why would you support a man that was against precious metals as currency, against private property, and against most principles that H.L. Mencken stood for? Seems a bit odd of you to have a quote of Menckens and then espousing this mans view.

By the by, I see Bohm-Bawerk did a nice little critique of Georgism in Capital and Interest. Good stuff I say.

[Southron]

Will charities really take care of the poor?

No.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Under a just society there would never be an able-bodied man or woman who is willing to work in need of charity, for they would have access to the raw materials needed to apply their labor and make a living.

For the disabled and the like, charity is good and necessary. Giving charity instead of work to the abled, though, is an insult.

Sometimes people get cancer and need help

Sometimes people simply have bad luck and lose everything because the CEO wrecked their company (thus costing them their life savings)

Able-bodied people unexpectedly need help for a lot of reasons, and you seem unable to grasp that concept

The world is not as simple as you see it.

We will always need the help of individuals, families, friends, neighbors, religious organizations and aid societies to provide relief to those who fall on rough times

[ChaosControl]

I give to charity. The local animal shelter. It is a no kill shelter, so I feel it is a good cause.

Charities I support the most are animal-welfare ones, environmental/organic ones, and ones to help kids.
I prefer local charities the most though, as I gain more income I'll donate more to various charities that fit in the three areas I specified.

[Elwar]

My wife donates too much...

[tnvoter]

I donate a about 15% of my paycheck every two weeks to excellent organizations. I'd probably give about 5% more if there was no fed income tax.

[johngr]

One easy was to "take care" of them: offer generous assistance contingent on getting sterilised.

[Baptist]

We often make the case that the entitlement system will be replaced by charity on the part of individuals and organizations

But how many people here give to charity?

I'm sure some will make the case that the government already steals their charity money (forced charity) and that's why they don't donate

And that's a legitimate argument

But I wonder how many would give to charity if there were 0% taxes

Answer honestly in the poll

We do not believe tithing is a commandment. We believe that Christians are supposed to give from the heart. That said, we give at least 10% to the church. We also infrequently give to non-church charities.

In my dream society with Ron Paul as dictator, not only would my family give another 10%+ to charities (on top of what we give to church), hopefully my church would be feeding the homeless, poor and elderly in our town too.


[edit] btw, when we give we give it anonymously. It is none of the other church member's business how much we give, or if we give at all. For this reason, I slip money orders or cash into the offering when nobody is around. Similarly, when I give anonymously to charities it prevents the junk mail from coming. The gov can shove their tax deduction up their ass. We value our privacy over saving a couple thousand bucks a year.

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
- Mathew 6

[reardenstone]

I give to charity and I also do the nickel and dime thing every time someone asks me to at the cash register. More would happen if the state would allow it.

We also need to include good old fashioned family charity. Whatever happened to people taking care of their kin?

[Vessol]

The hospital in Bozeman, Montana is run fully by a charitable non-profit organization and it is run brilliantly. I have full confidence that in a voluntaryist society that voluntary charity would be astoundingly productive and common.

[farrar]

Absolutely. Americans prove time and time again that charity is effective even with taxes. The real question is, how much better would charity be if we weren't taxed?

They are pretty great as they are.
A charity can take a few thousand dollars, invest it in say a local fair, and double their money while providing a healthy form of fun to the community, which is good for families and a children. They rally volunteers in a community to come together for a common good. Charities make a much more positive impact than government. Government dictates we all give half a penny, charity asks for what you can spare and they get a dollar bill or more (one person then does what 200 or more did, and purely by will and the kindness in their heart).

I remember talking with a friend of mine in class, when we were 2 of 3 people in a class of 20 to donate to a Haiti relief fund. I chipped in $5, my friend $1 and someone else had a few quarters. We joked that if we were all forced to give 10% to the fund, the three of us would still rival all 17 of the others forced to pay up. Also I noticed, when the thought of being forced to donate crossed my mind I suddenly felt as if 50 cents was alot to ask for. I would have no longer had incentive to donate feeling covered by the other 19 people. In some respects I would have also felt robbed. I believe that is what happens in the real world. When we are told government is going to handle it by taking a penny from everyone, suddenly everyone feels like they don't need to donate that dollar they normally would have. It seemss so insignificant to the 10 million the government raised... until you do the math.

[jake]

I think it's generous to call taxation "forced charity"

unless you include charity to big business and the politicians themselves as recipients of this 'charity'