Does the world need humanitarian political parties to promote social justice?

[Robert_Sock]

We went through a long thread on whether the fact that people starve to death is a crime, is a crime against humanity, etc.

As was mentioned in the thread I mentioned before and elsewhere, people who are starving are starving for different reasons.

What are we supposed to do about those who are starving in North Korea? Should we go in there and topple the government so that we can feed the people there?

What are we supposed to do about people starving in Somalia, where the warlords steal the food as or before it is distributed to the people? Just start shooting?

What are we supposed to do about the people who have no food in the Phillppines as the result of the typhoon? Pretty much what we are doing: sending money and many are going there to help out.

What was our moral obligation to ending the Holocaust? Can you imagine not taking action because we did not want to interfere with the Nazis? They are all criminals, and must be dealt with!

 

[St_Francis]

What was our moral obligation to ending the Holocaust? Can you imagine not taking action because we did not want to interfere with the Nazis? They are all criminals, and must be dealt with!

It seems to me that this was also thrashed out in a previous thread. We did not enter WW2 because of the Holocaust. We entered it because the Japanese attacked us. The NYT barely reported on the issue of 12 million being killed and an additional number of survivors being held in concentration and labor camps.

The reality is that the Church teaches certain things about war, and quite possibly the starvation of the government’s people is a nust reason to go to war. But in that case, perhaps the Moslems would be justified in going to war with the US due to its legalization of abortion here and “advocacy” if not extortion of abortion world-wide.

And Communist nations might find it justified to go to war with non-Communist nations to free the oppressed workers.

And of course, if we went to war against a nation whose people were starving, more might be killed and others maimed by the war which was started to save them from death by starvation, which would sort of defeat the purpose, no?

 

[Robert_Sock]

It seems to me that this was also thrashed out in a previous thread. We did not enter WW2 because of the Holocaust. We entered it because the Japanese attacked us. The NYT barely reported on the issue of 12 million being killed and an additional number of survivors being held in concentration and labor camps.

The reality is that the Church teaches certain things about war, and quite possibly the starvation of the government’s people is a nust reason to go to war. But in that case, perhaps the Moslems would be justified in going to war with the US due to its legalization of abortion here and “advocacy” if not extortion of abortion world-wide.

And Communist nations might find it justified to go to war with non-Communist nations to free the oppressed workers.

And of course, if we went to war against a nation whose people were starving, more might be killed and others maimed by the war which was started to save them from death by starvation, which would sort of defeat the purpose, no?

Surely the US and its allies knew of the atrocities in Nazi Germany well before the end of the war.

I’m not necessarily talking about going to war, but enacting sanctions and supporting rebels who can topple the evil dictators. Where are these talks today? They likely do not exist.

 

[Hobbes42]

Maybe their war on poverty was seriously flawed. Like trying to fix poverty while the nation maintained a large income inequality.

So… I suppose the answer then is to ‘get’ all the rich people so we’ll all be equal ? equally poor?

In the US, prior to the 1960’s income inequality was shrinking at a consistent rate. After those programs, the poor lost their incentive and stopped gaining in income to keep shrinking that gap.

The issue here is not going to be solved by a state response. Politicians lie, even ones who would wave around such airy and high ideals such as ‘humanitarianism’.

 

[St_Francis]

Surely the US and its allies knew of the atrocities in Nazi Germany well before the end of the war.

And your point…?

I’m not necessarily talking about going to war, but enacting sanctions

Sanctions generally result in more hunger, not less.

and supporting rebels who can topple the evil dictators.

It is common that rebels who can topple the evil dictators are just as bad if not worse. What then?

Where are these talks today? They likely do not exist.

I guess it depends on who is doing the talking. Sanctions and regime change when brought up by one set of people is vilified, but lauded when brought up by others. Right now, our nation (US) is already in serious financial trouble.

On airplanes, those who are travelling as caretakers are told to put an oxygen mask on themselves *first, *because what will happen to the person they are caring for if they themselves collapse?

In the same way, the US does a lot of good in the world; we are consistently at the top or tied with Australia, with the thrid lagging far behind; if our economy collapses, we may be unable to do the good we are currently doing, much less increase it.

Also, what do you think about the points I made? What do you think about the fact that welfare changes the attitudes of the non-poor towards their obligation to help? What do you think about the monetization of help for the poor, with no corresponding human contact?

 

[Hobbes42]

Surely the US and its allies knew of the atrocities in Nazi Germany well before the end of the war.

I’m not necessarily talking about going to war, but enacting sanctions and supporting rebels who can topple the evil dictators. Where are these talks today? They likely do not exist.

So… support Rebels like the West is doing in Syria? Ah yes, those wonderful, democratic rebels, they spread freedom and social justice with each young girl they dismember with a frame saw.

Sanctions, so because you claim a “dictator” as “evil” you are going to starve the entire population to satisfy your altruism?

 

[Robert_Sock]

So… support Rebels like the West is doing in Syria? Ah yes, those wonderful, democratic rebels, they spread freedom and social justice with each young girl they dismember with a frame saw.

Not all oppositional groups are a bunch of terrorists.

Sanctions, so because you claim a “dictator” as “evil” you are going to starve the entire population to satisfy your altruism?

There are other sanctions besides food.

 

[JB_Dugan]

So I guess if you want to be charitable toward some poor person, you should make sure your gift is only a small token and does not go too far in meeting their needs, or else you might be leading them to dependancy, right?

No. That’s not what I said at all.

 

[SuperLuigi]

More parties are not the answer. It would just be another excuse for people to be selfish.

Make what we have better.

The best way to help those in need is to take up the responsibility ourselves. Yeah, I know it’s not as cool or fun as using the force of government, but regardless of whatever political system you live in, you cannot go wrong with personal charity.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Sanctions generally result in more hunger, not less.

Perhaps. But, this is allowable in Catholic teaching for national and global security reasons.

What has been even more destructive are feel-good Western polices where money is dumped all over the developing world and ends up in the hands of warlords and dictators.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No. That’s not what I said at all.

Well, what you did say was:

By allowing a government to do God’s work we began subsidizing and enabling a way of life. To put it bluntly, we are paying young women to have children out of wedlock. We are paying people to be unemployed. And we are paying them to remain poor.

Which caused me to wonder what you meant by “God’s work”. Were you saying you were against government programs for the poor because you thought private charities should be doing that work? That prompted me to ask:

If this is so, I would like to know why Christian charity would not also result in paying women to have children out of wedlock, paying people to be unemployed, and paying poor people to remain poor? Do the poor really behave that much differently if their help comes from the Church vs a government program? Or maybe you are against Christian charity providing these things too?

to which you responded:

I am against any charity, government or religious organization subsidizing a way of life that maintains any form of dependency.

at which point I was really puzzled. Were you saying that government programs promoted dependance while private charities did not promote dependance? The only thing I could think of that would make that much difference was the amount of assistance given, and so I asked:

So I guess if you want to be charitable toward some poor person, you should make sure your gift is only a small token and does not go too far in meeting their needs, or else you might be leading them to dependency, right?

in order to probe what you thought was the operative difference between government programs and private charities in regard to their effect on the poor. I already know what you think about the difference between the two in regard to the difference on the giver (or the taxpayer) and the injustice of it all from their perspective. But at the moment I wasn’t asking about that. I was only asking about the difference in the effect on the poor, which you still have not answered. So which is it? I’ll make it easy with a multiple choice, if you don’t want to explain your position in full. I hope you choose #3.

1. Any substantial assistance provided to the poor, whether from government programs or private charities, causes dependency, therefore charitable assistance must be limited to insubstantial assistance (i.e. token assistance).
2. Substantial assistance may be given through charity, and it will not engender dependency because the love with which the assistance is administered will so inspire the poor to redouble their efforts to help themselves, and will escape dependency despite their circumstance.
3. –your own words, please–

 

[SuperLuigi]

at which point I was really puzzled. Were you saying that government programs promoted dependance while private charities did not promote dependance? The only thing I could think of that would make that much difference was the amount of assistance given, and so I asked:

Here’s a perspective on that:

ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/09/18/how-entitlements-crowd-out-private-charity

A person may be dependent on private charity, but private charity is still subject to the free market and cannot pick winners and losers like the government does.

But if private charity dries up, that person has incentive not to be so dependent, and there is perhaps that realization. But a person who is dependent on government is often promised that their aid will be there in perpetuity, hence an entitlement.

I also think there can be a certain element of hurt pride/shame with asking others besides government for money.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A person may be dependent on private charity, but private charity is still subject to the free market and cannot pick winners and losers like the government does.

It seems to me that private charities have more, not less, freedom to choose who they give assistance to. So the charities can pick winners and losers, while the government, once it establishes the critieria for assistance, is fairly unable to pick on a case-by-case basis who gets that assistance. But maybe you meant something entirely different by “pick winners and losers”?

But if private charity dries up, that person has incentive not to be so dependent, and there is perhaps that realization. But a person who is dependent on government is often promised that their aid will be there in perpetuity, hence an entitlement.

Is a private charity any more likely to “dry up” as you say than a government program? I don’t think the recipients of government assistance are going to feel all that assured that their assistance will continue in perpetuity, given the constant attacks they see on the news by those who disagree with such programs.

I also think there can be a certain element of hurt pride/shame with asking others besides government for money.

OK, now we get to the real point, and I’m glad you brought it up. Private charity allows the giver to shame the recipients as the gifts are given so that discourages the recipients from taking the gifts and growing dependent. By the way, I don’t personally agree with administering charity that way. I think every effort should be made to remove the sense of shame from the recipients. You may think this is automatic with government programs, but private charities can be administered without shame as well.

 

[JB_Dugan]

in order to probe what you thought was the operative difference between government programs and private charities in regard to their effect on the poor. I already know what you think about the difference between the two in regard to the difference on the giver (or the taxpayer) and the injustice of it all from their perspective. But at the moment I wasn’t asking about that. I was only asking about the difference in the effect on the poor, which you still have not answered. So which is it? I’ll make it easy with a multiple choice, if you don’t want to explain your position in full. I hope you choose #3.

1. Any substantial assistance provided to the poor, whether from government programs or private charities, causes dependency, therefore charitable assistance must be limited to insubstantial assistance (i.e. token assistance).
2. Substantial assistance may be given through charity, and it will not engender dependency because the love with which the assistance is administered will so inspire the poor to redouble their efforts to help themselves, and will escape dependency despite their circumstance.
3. –your own words, please–

Ahhh, finally a more subjective question…

I will pass on #1 and #2 because they are questions with a built in premise, and I don’t respond to that kind of questioning.

In answer to #3:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”-- Ben Franklin

I know…those are not my own words, but they express my outlook on this subject exactly.

Ben was an intelligent guy. He traveled a lot for any man in his days. He spent considerable time in Europe. He observed…he compared… and he was wise.

To be more specific about the “operative difference between government programs and private charities in regard to their effect on the poor.” let me say:

A government has no incentive to be frugal, fair, or cautious with money because the money is not theirs, Throw in crafty politicians and favoritism appears. Government welfare programs have a history of keeping people dependent on government programs.

A charity or individual, on the other hand, has the incentive to control their giving. They can require something (other than votes) in return…something that will “not make people easy in poverty”…something that will “drive them out of it.” Thereby producing much more positive results.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A charity or individual, on the other hand, has the incentive to control their giving. They can require something (other than votes) in return…something that will “not make people easy in poverty”…something that will “drive them out of it.” Thereby producing much more positive results.

OK, I think I know what you mean. Habitat for Humanity, for example, requires their beneficiaries to put in some sweat equity in the houses that they build for them. Is that the kind of thing you mean? If so, what other examples are there of charities that require something of their beneficiaries? Because besides Habitat of Humanity, I think most charities do not require anything of their beneficiaries.

 

[christofirst]

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”-- Ben Franklin

Why do I have a problem with that one little word from wise old Ben’s quote? That one word “driving” seems to be where charity and compassion end. Who decides which of the impoverished people are like cattle who need to be “driven” to gainful employment? Where are the jobs we are driving them to, that will provide a living wage? (oh, there’s that pesky “social justice” phrase again!). Without the hope of decent paying jobs in this “jobless recovery”, how do you propose the poor will “do for themselves and become richer”, as old Ben so glibly and cheerfully suggests?

 

[christofirst]

OK, I think I know what you mean. Habitat for Humanity, for example, requires their beneficiaries to put in some sweat equity in the houses that they build for them. Is that the kind of thing you mean? If so, what other examples are there of charities that require something of their beneficiaries? Because besides Habitat of Humanity, I think most charities do not require anything of their beneficiaries.

I know that the WPA helped my grandfather during the Depression, by providing state (yes, taxpayer) funded jobs improving our infrastructure (laying water lines, in his case). I would welcome this type of government assistance again, for those who are able-bodied but unable to find work. Could the private sector start something like this? Or it is easier (more profitable) for them to keep using unpaid interns?

 

[JB_Dugan]

Why do I have a problem with that one little word from wise old Ben’s quote? That one word “driving” seems to be where charity and compassion end. Who decides which of the impoverished people are like cattle who need to be “driven” to gainful employment? Where are the jobs we are driving them to, that will provide a living wage? (oh, there’s that pesky “social justice” phrase again!). Without the hope of decent paying jobs in this “jobless recovery”, how do you propose the poor will “do for themselves and become richer”, as old Ben so glibly and cheerfully suggests?

Ben’s use of the word “driving” can seem a bit harsh by modern American English standards.

But consider, if you will, how scholars, 200 years from now, will be scratching their heads over a phrase like “How cool is that”.

What did “driving” mean in Ben’s day? If he meant it to be like driving cattle…that would be harsh. But Ben was known to speak and write “tongue-in-cheek”. Maybe the term had a colloquial meaning at that time and really meant something else in relation to people…

I think you should lighten up on Ben. Remember he said he was all for helping the poor.
I doubt that he meant “driving like cattle”.

The point is that we don’t help the poor by supporting them. The best form of help is to get them to provide for themselves.

 

[JB_Dugan]

OK, I think I know what you mean. Habitat for Humanity, for example, requires their beneficiaries to put in some sweat equity in the houses that they build for them. Is that the kind of thing you mean? If so, what other examples are there of charities that require something of their beneficiaries? Because besides Habitat of Humanity, I think most charities do not require anything of their beneficiaries.

Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic example (and one of my charities). Their are others. But more importantly to consider is the ability of individuals/private charities to select not only who receives, but also for what purpose.

Government provides food stamps to a needy family and that helps, but in some cases what the family really needs is help to send their children to a private school.

I think most charities/individuals have some type of requirement.

• Here is some support until you find a job…Use it for food and clothes for the kids.
• You may stay at this shelter as long as you are off drugs.
• If your son can stay away from gangs and maintain a 3.0 grade average for his last year in high school, I will give him a 4 year scholarship to Notre Dame.

These are perfectly reasonable requirements and along with things like Habitat for Humanity, would provide more help to more people than all government programs.

 

[St_Francis]

It seems to me that private charities have more, not less, freedom to choose who they give assistance to. So the charities can pick winners and losers, while the government, once it establishes the critieria for assistance, is fairly unable to pick on a case-by-case basis who gets that assistance. But maybe you meant something entirely different by “pick winners and losers”?

Is a private charity any more likely to “dry up” as you say than a government program? I don’t think the recipients of government assistance are going to feel all that assured that their assistance will continue in perpetuity, given the constant attacks they see on the news by those who disagree with such programs.

OK, now we get to the real point, and I’m glad you brought it up. Private charity allows the giver to shame the recipients as the gifts are given so that discourages the recipients from taking the gifts and growing dependent. By the way, I don’t personally agree with administering charity that way. I think every effort should be made to remove the sense of shame from the recipients. You may think this is automatic with government programs, but private charities can be administered without shame as well.

The sense of shame is somethings that “belongs” to the person requesting help and shoudl not be felt unless he is actually at fault for being in the position he is in–and then best dealt with by a priest or similar. I mean, it’s a separate problem.

However, I think there is a huge difference for the individual in need of help between going to a charity, where the money frequently comes from people who worked for it, and gave the money freely out of love…

…and the same person going to a bureaucrat to apply for money which the giver–the government–calls an entitlement.

Additionally, charity is the better way for people to get help, because the help will be *personalized. *For example, take two families, one just below the line where aid becomes available, and one just above. The difference in their yearly income may be as little as $100. But one will be accepted and one turned down, *even when the second family has a handicapped child which means they have less disposable income. *

A charity can look at their resources and give wisely.

Moreover, a charity is not limited to giving money. A charity can talk with the person in need and determine if the person (or family) needs help finding work, help budgeting, help learning to cook, or is incapable of working. The government would treat all these people the same way, but they need totally different forms of help.