Results 41 to 50 of 103
Thread: The purpose of government
-
02-01-2008, 06:25 PM #41
-
02-01-2008, 06:28 PM #42
-
02-01-2008, 06:43 PM #43
-
02-01-2008, 07:36 PM #44
The bottom line for me is an acknowledgment that charity is good. I believe in charity. Charity, however, is not a Government Program; it is voluntary. I believe that government forced charity is wrong. International aid - I don't think that is government's place. Their place is to guard the borders and keep us free to do the best for our families with our abilities. Funny, the quote about those who will not work will not eat. That should sound reasonable - EXCEPT that he meant that those who would not work for the government would not eat. That's an entirely different statement. Also, if he does not produce, he should seek charity from those who voluntarily donate their excess - not ask the government to take it from producers at the point of a gun to give it to anyone else. Again, I remind you that I believe in charity and compassion by reason and choice. I don't believe that forced charity is any more moral than theft.
Wirebeard, I totally agree with you that the hand of government is involved in myriad places that it does not belong (not sure that you feel it doesn't belong, but I know you're saying that most Americans don't have a clue. I assure you that I do have a clue. Admittedly, I may very well disagree with a large majority of the population!)Last edited by Dewey; 02-01-2008 at 07:58 PM.
-
02-01-2008, 08:06 PM #45
I agree. When folks ask me why the more fortunate shouldn't pay more taxes since "they can afford it" I can't help but to wonder if muggers should be punished less severely for mugging the rich than the poor?
I, too, advocate an end to government "charity." Don't view it as taking away from the needy, view it as better enabling the more fortunate to help those around them!
-
02-01-2008, 08:23 PM #46
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Maleny, Australia
- Posts
- 7,977
- Blog Entries
- 3
Thanked: 1587I keep going back to Mark's first post which interprets part of the Declaration of Independence - the bit that says Governments are instituted among men (and presumably women) to protect or uphold inalienable rights including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
I agree with that - I mean, who wouldn't? But the devil's in the detail, as with anything.
As an example, why isn't it in the spirit of the Declaration for Government to perform charity? And how's it going to do that without spending money? And where's it meant to get money from?
As always, I got no answers, just questions...
James.<This signature intentionally left blank>
-
02-01-2008, 08:31 PM #47
Charity is an individual choice. If the gov't takes money from unwilling "donors," it isn't charity, it's theft.
Essentially, if you are forcing someone to act charitably, IT AIN'T CHARITY, it's coercion. Charity HAS to be something an individual chooses.
If I rob you at gunpoint and then give the money to the Salvation Army, does that make it ok?
-
02-01-2008, 08:44 PM #48
-
02-01-2008, 08:58 PM #49
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Maleny, Australia
- Posts
- 7,977
- Blog Entries
- 3
Thanked: 1587But to protect life and liberty (and the pursuit of happiness) is the reason why your founding fathers thought Government was necessary. Certain forms of charity go to the very heart of all three of those inalienable rights.
Every time you elect any Government, you are willingly, and with full understanding, allowing them to levy taxes against you to enable them to perform their function.
James.<This signature intentionally left blank>
-
02-01-2008, 09:03 PM #50
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Maleny, Australia
- Posts
- 7,977
- Blog Entries
- 3
Thanked: 1587