The needs of the poor will never be completely fulfilled, as Jesus plainly told us. And that should not be the yardstick either. The yardstick should be based on our purpose in life - to bring souls into union with Christ. That is the only purpose of charity.
If that is the case, we certainly can’t rely on charity as a replacement for government aid.
I already recommended a book that chronicles the successes of charitable giving compared to the failures of the welfare state.
And we are told by Christ to care for the least of his children. What Christ doesn’t say is force others to do so.
You’ve yet to substantiate that government welfare programs provide for the poor and needy, and serves the purpose of lifting them up out of poverty. The evidence is quite clear. There are more poor now than 2009. There are more people on food stamps than in 2009. 50 years of central government anti-poverty programs have in no way made things better. Broken families - yes, clearly linked to AFDC polices of the past. Do you have some proof that government welfare programs have improved the lives of the poor? Can you connect the cause (welfare) to the effect (a decline in the number of people needing it)?
Read Olasky’s book. Compare the poverty rate in America in 1960, just prior to the Great Society programs, to today. How is the government actually doing better? Look at the percentage of children born out of wedlock, one of the leading predictors of poverty.
I think his question fits. Has government welfare programs improved things (much less provided for every child)? The answer is a resounding no, even after tens of trillions of dollars of spending.
There is indeed moral legitimacy in taxation, to an extent. It is immoral, however, to continue to fund programs that have overtly failed in their goal.
That may fit with the general discussion of the effectiveness of government programs, but the specific point I was responding to was the claim that charities would fill the needs if government would just get out of the way and reduce taxes. To that specific point, examples of government ineffectiveness are totally irrelevant. It does not address the claim I was challenging.
Not immoral. Just imprudent.
Right. And I didn’t say it was. But again you have to look at the claim I was countering. It was that taxation was theft. If the government uses taxes in an ineffective manner (according to some people), that is still not theft. It might be imprudence, but it is not theft.
It could be immoral as well as imprudent.
I don’t think they are irrelevant at all. If, at the very least, they respond better than government programs, then your question is answered.
Oh no. I think immoral fits well. When government takes money for redistribution purposes, already a practice of questionable morality, and wastes it continually, or uses it on programs proven to harm individual lives, that’s immoral.
But it is just your individual opinion that those programs are wasteful. We can’t go declaring things immoral just because some people think they are wasteful.
Not the question I was responding to.
Communism was immoral because it denied private property, not because they levied taxes.
There is a right way to express that view, and when enough people express that view, the practice will change.
Not that it matters for this thread, but property tax is not inherently immoral.
Strawman.
Why is one legitimate? Because a group of people or one strong man decided so? What is the substantial difference between that and paying protection money or complying with a robber?
Time to play Socrates. What happens when you do not pay your property taxes?
I don’t know, leaf, I’ve gotten some of that on the gun thread.
So any government tax is moral, according to your view?
Yeah, there is. Nobody said otherwise.
According to you.
I wasn’t actually countering your argument with that comment. I was simply expressing my belief about UBI. That is what the thread was about.
You’re being evasive. In your book, government programs are only valid if poverty is eradicated, eh? Strawman?