The argument from the right goes like this:
The gospel call to charity (the THEOLOGICAL definition) is a two edged sword. First it changes the heart of the giver in that he sees the effect of his gift and grows in Grace because of it. Second, the receiver not only receives material benefit, but sees that the true SOURCE of that gift is the love of God acting in the heart of the giver.
When all this is replaced by a system of taxation and bureaucratic handout, neither the giver (taxpayer) nor the recipient receive any of the spiritual benefits of true charity. Instead, the recipient takes his ‘right’ to receive for granted, the taxpayer only sees a burden and so resents it. Charity is gutted of its spiritual meaning and all that remains is mere material transfer of assets.
Some people use this argument merely as a way to eliminate the need to spend money on the poor altogether. But that abuse of the logic does not negate the logic of the argument.
Pretty good synopsis, but it’s not the argument from the right. It IS the argument from the Church:** 187. **The principle of subsidiarity protects people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfil their duties. This principle is imperative because every person, family and intermediate group has something original to offer to the community. Experience shows that the denial of subsidiarity, or its limitation in the name of an alleged democratization or equality of all members of society, limits and sometimes even destroys the spirit of freedom and initiative.
The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”[400]. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well.
In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice there is a
corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family; ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exercised by others; the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics; the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components; safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities; bringing about bureaucratic and administrative decentralization; striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the private sphere; appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively “being a part” of the political and social reality of their country.
** 188. **
Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions[401]. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace. In light of the principle of subsidiarity, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the
exceptional nature of the situation. In any case, the common good correctly understood, the demands of which will never in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity.
As a fully-certified member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™, I can tell you that the FULL scenario you discussed would require some seriously polyannish assumptions, at a bare minimum. It assumes that the massive cultural shift in the attitude of the “entitled” class (those who receive government entitlements) would be capable of shifting back to what it was, prior to the massive damage caused to their souls as a result of the socialistic policies implemented since the 1930s. It also assumes that those with surplus would be able to be convinced to adopt an attitude of philanthropy. Neither of those options, in our materialistic society, are very bloody likely (IMHO).
Therefore, my honest assessment is that it won’t EVER be fixed until there is a VERY painful economic revolution that throws off the desire to meddle with socialism for many, many generations. Such a revolution will only occur when we have collapsed on the weight of our own feeling of entitlement. But one is likely to occur in the not TOO distant future.
Have you seen the latest report from the
Social Security Trustees? The “Social Assistance State” will start losing money in 2017. The reserves will be depleted about 25-30 years after that point. How are you in macroeconomics? (The only alternative was to cut benefits and triple the FICA tax…and that will kill people in of itself)
].