If conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, why do they think poor people should rely on charity instead of the government?

[Bill_Martin]

And yet we are expected to believe that multi-millionaires, with the immense power that comes with their wealth, are to be trusted to act for the common good?

Or worse, we are expected to put our faith in a blind process by which “the market” produces a utilitarian “greatest good for the greatest number” even though the individual actors are selfish.

Nothing truly conservative about either point of view as far as I can see.

Edwin

The difference is choice. I have more freedom operating in a free market than I do in a system where the government has control over everything because I can choose who I do business with, who I avoid, where I spend my money, etc. It is harder to limit my civil liberties when I am not dependent on the government for survival. They have less leverage. Multi-millionaires can’t use the force of law to compel people to do what they want. Politicians do.

 

[Brendan]

A view that is both realistic and orthodox.

By your own admission, the contemporary American ideology misnamed “conservatism” is fundamentally Pelagian.

Edwin

Nope, there is a difference between noting that human nature is fundamentally good (which is normative Church teaching) and saying that Grace is unecessary to achieve salvation (which was the error of the Peligians)

 

[buffalo]

And yet we are expected to believe that multi-millionaires, with the immense power that comes with their wealth, are to be trusted to act for the common good?

Or worse, we are expected to put our faith in a blind process by which “the market” produces a utilitarian “greatest good for the greatest number” even though the individual actors are selfish.

Nothing truly conservative about either point of view as far as I can see.

Edwin

Yes, they do not put their money in their mattress. A human reaction to confiscatory tax policy is to feel they already gave.

 

[Brendan]

I hear this all the time these days, but it just makes no sense at all.

If you are denying that the government has the right to tax, then you’re at odds with the Christian tradition as well as with the traditions of most civilized human societies.

I don’t see how you can claim that taxation is “stealing” when used to help the poor and not “stealing” when used for some other purpose, like raising an army.
Edwin

It falls in the difference between what is God’s and what is Ceasars.

Sinc Caritas (Charity) is one of the Theologic virtues that is infused upon us at our Baptism, it Charity is clearly God’s.

The State, being an unbaptized entity, cannot truely practice the virtue of Charity. The State, in performing the feeding of the poor, brings about no Grace in the world. In fact, as St. John Chrysostom noted, it can bring about moral harm.

Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

The poor, in recieving assistance, feel and express no gratitute, as they are simply recieving what they are ‘owed’ by the State.

The rich, on the otherhand, feel resentment.

Can anyone deny that this is what is happening in the world? How can ingratitude and resentment be Charity? How does that bring about Grace in the world and the Salvation of Souls?, which is really our ultimate goal.

I for one, feel that +Chrysostom is correct. The only true way to create economic justice is through the changing of hearts. In other words, conversions of heart towards the Gospel of Christ as presented by the Church.

In this, I see FAR more resistance from the liberals.

 

[Edward_H]

I think liberals love to paint conservatives as darker; it makes them feel more superior.

Conservatives don’t believe in a perfect able society on earth. There are always trade offs to make, rubbing up against man’s defects.

Read Thomas Sowell’s now classic Conflict of Visions to more deeply understand what’s going on.

As an aside I believe when the Government gives…the Holy Spirit is effectively cut out of the chemical reaction that normally, naturally and supernaturally occurs when there is real person to person gift.

The government can’t love…and we can’t love effectively through the government. Thats why conservatives like the principle of subsidiarity.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

This is straw man… most conservatives believe in a safety net. You seem to think conservative equals anarchists. The difference is liberals come from the perspective of providing as much government assistance as possible, where as conservatives want government involvement to be as little as is needed. Liberals would like to bring as much revenue as they can into the government coffers to distribute out, where conservatives look to find the minimum amount government needs to take in to fulfill its responsibilities. Like I said, go read John Locke and Karl Marx and then come back and try to tell me conservatives have a dark view of human nature…

Well, I’ll believe you since I’m not conservative (in the modern sense of the word). But how would reading John Locke and Karl Marx help me find out if conservatives have a dark view of human nature? Both are liberals! Classical liberalism vs Marxism (modern liberalism).

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I agree that it’s an inconsistency–further evidence that what Americans call “conservatives” aren’t really conservatives at all.

It’s hard to be a real conservative and an American. American politics are really a fight between two branches of the liberal tradition.

Now if you ask a liberal (using the term in its common contemporary American sense), they’ll tell you (at least in their more polemical moods) that there’s no contradiction–that “conservatives” want to bring “back” a dark world of dog-eat-dog. And there may be some folks who have been reading too much Ayn Rand who really think this way. But on the whole, at least if one trusts their rhetoric, American “conservatives” do seem to think that if left alone people will take care of the poor voluntarily. And I agree, this just doesn’t square with the orthodox Christian view of human nature. What particularly doesn’t square with it is the confidence in the rich involved in this view, since the historic Christian view is that wealth, while certainly not intrinsically evil, does tend to corrupt people–particularly the effort to acquire wealth. (Traditional Christian ethics are more comfortable with inherited than acquired wealth–exactly the reverse of the typical American attitude and further evidence for the “un-conservatism” of American “conservatives.”)

Edwin

This.

 

[Contarini]

Nope, there is a difference between noting that human nature is fundamentally good (which is normative Church teaching) and saying that Grace is unecessary to achieve salvation (which was the error of the Peligians)

The Church teaches that the human will is “turned in on itself” so that without grace people’s capacities even for natural good are fundamentally wounded. That’s part of the rejection of Pelagianism.

People are fundamentally good in the sense that their nature, created by God, is good, and the divine image is ineradicable. Grace builds on nature. But concupiscence is a reality with which any Christian view of the social order must deal. And the more power and wealth a person has–and particular the more they are encouraged in acquisitive patterns of behavior–the harder it will be for them to resist indulging in the impulses of concupiscence in ways destructive both to their own souls and to the society at large.

One of the purposes of a just government is to restrain concupiscence–the tendency of the fallen will to act for its own good rather than that of God and the neighbor. “Conservatives” irrationally assume that this must take only punitive forms. But social welfare legislation is another form of restraining human sinfulness for the common good. The arguments that “taxation is theft” and that “charity cannot be forced” (when the latter is used to reject taxation for social-welfare purposes and other government-sponsored “charitable” initiatives") are thus fundamentally heretical as well as socially destructive.

Edwin

 

[Della]

What I believe as a conservative (if I have to pick a designation) is that people ought to be given all the help they need to make it on their own–education, training, funds to survive between jobs, but no one should be made a slave of the state, living off of government funds the whole of their lives–not unless they are unable to care for themselves or are severely mentally ill, which government doesn’t do well, btw. Bureaucracies tend to bloat and become self-serving, as is all too evident in all the ridiculous laws and rules that hamper attempts by private citizens to aid those in need. Frankly, if the government can’t do the job or does it too poorly, then it shouldn’t be involved, but should aid those who have no other interest but helping those who truly need it instead of trying to put more and more people on welfare rolls just to garner votes for those who put them on them.

 

[Contarini]

It falls in the difference between what is God’s and what is Ceasars.

Everything is God’s. To say otherwise is to commit blasphemy. Which is why the conventional interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on taxation is obviously false–he can’t possibly mean that God and Caesar divide the world up between them. The only thing that is “Caesar’s” is the money on which Caesar has put his stamp–and this only insofar as the money is an idolatrous symbol of Caesar’s power.

Sinc Caritas (Charity) is one of the Theologic virtues that is infused upon us at our Baptism, it Charity is clearly God’s.

You’re confusing charity as a theological virtue with the conventional social meaning of the word. Jews perhaps have a clearer vocabulary for this when they call money given to help the poor “tsedaqah,” “justice.”

To provide for the common good is a responsibility of civil authorities. Civil authorities do not need to be configured in their present form–the state. I am very sympathetic to the argument that the state has swallowed up the functions of civil society and needs to be scaled back. I take real small-government people like Ron Paul very seriously. But anyone who, for instance, doesn’t want to introduce huge defense cuts simply can’t be taken seriously as a small-government person. What we really get from American “conservatives” is the idea that the government has certain narrowly defined roles, consisting mostly of war and police functions. This seems to be the position you’re suggesting. I see no basis for such a position in orthodox Christian tradition. If we’re going to have a government at all, it might as well feed the hungry as kill people. I’m much more interested in limiting its killing-people powers than it’s feeding-the-hungry powers.

The State, being an unbaptized entity, cannot truely practice the virtue of Charity.

It can provide for the common good. And what it means for the state to be an “unbaptized entity” is a bit dubious to me. America is allegedly a democracy. Most Americans are Christians. The American state thus ought to be, in its general ethos (though not in any sense that limits the freedom of non-Christians), Christian. And American conservatives are quite happy to advocate this when it comes to certain issues–but not when it comes to care for the poor. This, again, makes no sense.

The State, in performing the feeding of the poor, brings about no Grace in the world. In fact, as St. John Chrysostom noted, it can bring about moral harm.

You’re taking Chrysostom’s statement completely out of context and you’re setting up a straw man.

It is the task of governing authorities (which, again, don’t necessarily need to take the form of the modern state, but in fact largely do in our society, so that’s what we have to deal with) to provide for the common good. This is stated over and over again in Catholic teaching–see CCC 1897-1912, especially 1908:

Second, the common good requires the social well-being and *development *of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.

Your argument is fundamentally at odds with Catholic social teaching.

The poor, in recieving assistance, feel and express no gratitute, as they are simply recieving what they are ‘owed’ by the State.

The rich, on the otherhand, feel resentment.

Of course people are sinful and may respond sinfully to any situation. But that doesn’t change the obligations of governing authorities as set forth in Catholic teaching.

As for Chrysostom, as I said you’re taking him out of context. Chrysostom is in principle opposed to private property–his ideal society is one in which the rich give up their wealth and everyone shares everything equally. But his point is that if the government were to impose such a “communist” state of affairs bad results would follow. He is not talking about state relief of the poor. His argument corresponds rather to Aquinas’s explanation of why it is that private property exists (though Aquinas is rather more favorable to private property than Chrysostom). Private property, says Aquinas, is held by individuals in trust for the common good, and this is a better arrangement than simply trying to hold everything in common. Neither Aquinas nor Chrysostom are ruling out the right of governing authorities to impose taxation for the common good.

Now even if Chrysostom did mean what you say he means, his opinion would not stand against the judgment of the Church as a whole, as summarized in the passage from the Catechism as I cited above. But as a historical matter you and the propagandist(s) on whom you are relying are radically misinterpreting Chrysostom.

Can anyone deny that this is what is happening in the world? How can ingratitude and resentment be Charity?

Indeed. But the guilt here lies on the shoulders of those who stir up such resentment.

I am much more dubious about the “ingratitude” claim. No doubt there are those who take state benefits for granted–people are, again, sinful. And there will be more of them the more total the state provisions are, which again is one reason why the principle of subsidiarity is important–the state ought, as much as possible, to facilitate local initiatives. But in fact it seems to me that the claims of “ingratitude” are largely political propaganda and come from people with little experience of actually working with the poor, but with a serious commitment to resist any encroachment on the right of the rich to get ever richer.

I’m not disputing that it’s always better to care for the poor on a personal, local level rather than through a vast bureaucracy. But the bottom line is the one stated by the catechism: those in authority have the duty of ensuring access to basic human needs to all those over whom they have authority. If that takes a big, corrupt, inefficient bureaucracy, so be it. If you want to dismantle the bureaucracy, you have to have something to put in its place beyond a vague, unrealistic belief that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that if left alone rich people will just do what is right out of the goodness of their hearts.

Edwin

 

[JimG]

I must be missing something. I really don’t think that concupiscience, Pelagianism, or one’s view of human nature has much to do with it.

Government can only distribute what it obtains from its citizens. When it’s broke, it’s broke. When it’s overobligated, it can’t meet its obligations.

Now one can argue about what functions to cut, including natonal defense. But merely cutting defense budgets won’t make the rest of government solvent, and will leave the nation vulnerable to much worse. And in fact no one is even considering cuts at the moment; rather they are arguing about slowing the rate of increase in spending.

 

[Nate13]

Well, I’ll believe you since I’m not conservative (in the modern sense of the word). But how would reading John Locke and Karl Marx help me find out if conservatives have a dark view of human nature? Both are liberals! Classical liberalism vs Marxism (modern liberalism).

Lol just read how they talk of the human person and human nature and you may see how absurd a notion it is to say that conservatives have the darker view of human nature. The reason you see socialism as being good and kind is because when you think of it you think of everyone contributing to the government programs willfully and happily. You see a large government with a lots of social programs as a thing of great compassion.

What you seem to overlook is that this picture is not a nice picture of human nature at all. Why is the government involved at all in these programs? You and others have repeatedly told us that people won’t donate enough money to help the poor and needy of their own volition, while conservatives argue that individuals or lower levels of government would do a much better job and would provide the care (notice the bold of lower levels of government). In other words liberals (modern day American style) believe people (human nature) are too selfish to provide all these things unless they are forced, while conservatives do believe in peoples ability to be compassionate and provide for those less fortunate. I guarantee you that if you looked at the States with the lowest taxes, you would find that the lower the taxes are in a State the more the people of that State give to charity on average. Considering how godless America is compared to 100 years ago that is somewhat surprising to see.

The closer to socialism/communism you get in your views the less you believe in people, and the more you see them as naturally evil. A strong centralized government is a sign that the people under that government are weak, because if they were not weak they would not need a government to overlook and control the charity process.

 

[Contarini]

Lol just read how they talk of the human person and human nature and you may see how absurd a notion it is to say that conservatives have the darker view of human nature. The reason you see socialism as being good and kind is because when you think of it you think of everyone contributing to the government programs willfully and happily.

A true socialist does expect that once the “wrong” economic and social structures are abolished, people will just naturally do what is good.

But of course labeling people who believe in some government intervention as “socialist” is just a straw man anyway.

The point is that arguing for government intervention to regulate the market and to help those who “lose” by the rules of the market is a proper expression of traditional, Augustinian Catholic orthodoxy, in which people are fallen beings characterized by concupiscence. Which is why the Catholic Church, while condemning socialism, has traditionally called for such intervention–and why those who oppose such intervention are tone-deaf to a vitally important part of orthodox Christian social teaching.

What you seem to overlook is that this picture is not a nice picture of human nature at all.

It’s a realistic one.

When it comes to prisons and military buildups, “conservatives” have a very dark picture of human nature. But when it comes to social programs, suddenly we can all depend on the natural goodness of humans to be nice to each other. This doesn’t compute, unless the assumption is that foreigners and poor people are bad, while rich Americans are naturally good. Which, ironically, is the mirror image of the Marxist view that locates evil in oppressive economic structures–but at least the Marxist view has some analogy to traditional Christian views of sinfulness, while the view that the rich are uniquely virtuous is simply a demonic inversion of Christian ethics.

Chesterton complained a hundred years ago about this wicked and foolish idea, but unfortunately it’s still with us–sometimes in the mouths of those who like to quote Chesterton.

Edwin

 

[Jobu]

There are so many ways this question and supporting liberal comments in this forum are wrong.

For the record, the government isn’t “giving” anything; it is redistributing and borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. The 40 cents doesn’t include interest that it continues to pay on the 15 trillion it owes, about another 20 cents. The debt our nation owes per family is $684K (usdebtclock.org/) . In the time I wrote this we spent $40 million we didn’t have.

There is nothing dark about recent data that shows conservatives donate more of their income than liberals. You can check my facts on this (red states versus blue and individual candidate donations). What is dark is how we label folks so we can mistrust them properly. When talking about how the government should give more you should frame the concept truthfully by saying that our unborn descendants should give more. You should also keep in mind (and this is important) that you’re telling the people you’re talking to that they aren’t paying enough. Quit hiding behind the rich people argument because it’s old, useless, and unfounded. Even if you take everything the rich have and burn ‘em at the stake you’d pay for a week of government operations and the debt wouldn’t budge. In reality it’s much better to keep the rich alive, taking pot shots from liberals, and being freshly squeezed to pay “their fair share”. You’re really talking to your working neighbors when you say “pay up baby” not just the incredibly wealthy yachtsters of the upper crust.

Then there is the “Church wants this kind of government” red herring. Really? Have you checked the Church’s street creds on how it influenced governments in the past? Give to Caesar what is his; you do what you have to do. The Church government and in fact the whole Social Justice argument sounds a whole lot like, “I don’t have to do my part if everyone else does mine” and is in fact, dangerous for the masses until God puts His kingdom here. Conservatives, liberals, socialists, minimalists, rockers, shoppers, and sports fans alike get out there and find a poor person to help and quit blaming everyone else by expecting the most bloated, indebted government on Earth to snag salvation for you. Will you have to live with the fact that some hugely rich guy who is not Steve Jobs but more like Scrooge going to be grateful you’re leaving him alone? Heck yeah! For a few years until he dies but the government can wait him out to get their cut through capital gains, death taxes, and squeezing his heirs. Get over it and try spending 70 cents of every dollar you earn on your favorite charity. Set an example of your principles that you expect the rich guy to follow.

I’ll bet (yep really bet) that if you have some hard-earned dollars to give to the needy that you’d check out the charity you’re giving it to pretty thoroughly rather than just writing a check to Uncle Sam to distribute it to the needy. That’s pretty much the “dark” conservative argument in a nutshell. No mystery there.

Finally – and I’m cherry picking here because there are lots of just plain wrong stuff in this thread – liberals actually believe that the government is the do gooder of true Robin Hood caliber. Knowing that Robin Hood is a legend, conservatives want proof. Pretty much goes to the fact that conservatives know it is their money the liberals want to spend. Liberals know it is the conservative’s money too. According to Gallup (gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx) 40% of the country call themselves conservative and 20% call themselves “liberal”. I’d argue that there are more liberals because I just can’t see the 100 million people receiving government assistance (non SSI) voting conservative but rather using cover of the old “I’m a conservative but a social liberal” fallacy but I digress. The 100 million people receiving assistance eliminates any proof that government spending solves poverty. The more likely truth is that we are actually seeding and growing poverty. How is it that we’ve spent so much wealth, continue to spend, owe so much, and yet continue to ask for more for entitlement programs when the number of people we classify as needy skyrockets? I don’t speak for conservatives when I say that this evidence makes me chuckle (no, LOL) when liberals tell us that higher taxes alleviates poverty.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Lol just read how they talk of the human person and human nature and you may see how absurd a notion it is to say that conservatives have the darker view of human nature. The reason you see socialism as being good and kind is because when you think of it you think of everyone contributing to the government programs willfully and happily. You see a large government with a lots of social programs as a thing of great compassion.

Er, when did I say I saw socialism as being “good and kind”? Socialism is contradictory with Catholicism. Just looking briefly at Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno will show you that.

1. The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate. It not only professes the rejection of violence but modifies and tempers to some degree, if it does not reject entirely, the class struggle and the abolition of private ownership. One might say that, terrified by its own principles and by the conclusions drawn therefrom by Communism, Socialism inclines toward and in a certain measure approaches the truths which Christian tradition has always held sacred; for it cannot be denied that its demands at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html

Even though in the end socialism is rejected we can see that it holds similar goals to Christian Democracy.

The Church doesn’t speak too fondly of capitalism either:

1. This happens with particularly negative effects in the international relations which concern the developing countries. For as we know the tension between East and West is not in itself an opposition between two different levels of development but rather between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction. This opposition is transferred to the developing countries themselves, and thus helps to widen the gap already existing on the economic level between North and South and which results from the distance between the two worlds: the more developed one and the less developed one.

This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism. For from the point of view of development the question naturally arises: in what way and to what extent are these two systems capable of changes and updatings such as to favor or promote a true and integral development of individuals and peoples in modern society? In fact, these changes and updatings are urgent and essential for the cause of a development common to all.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html

In Caritas in Veritate Pope Benedict XVI views negatively the downsizing of social security systems and deregulation of the labor market. He calls for implanting public welfare systems in poorer countries. Populorum Progressio called for richer countries to have higher taxes. The reason why our welfare systems are failing is a disregard for subsidiarity and Churches and other various groups that are supposed to help out in welfare systems. People think the government can do it all, and it just can’t. All that happens is it becomes inefficient and not providing genuine care. Just look at Bavaria where the welfare system works and Churches and Unions play a big part in the social security and welfare system. Just because you reject how welfare systems are implemented doesn’t mean you should criticize the idea in general.

What you seem to overlook is that this picture is not a nice picture of human nature at all. Why is the government involved at all in these programs? You and others have repeatedly told us that people won’t donate enough money to help the poor and needy of their own volition, while conservatives argue that individuals or lower levels of government would do a much better job and would provide the care (notice the bold of lower levels of government). In other words liberals (modern day American style) believe people (human nature) are too selfish to provide all these things unless they are forced, while conservatives do believe in peoples ability to be compassionate and provide for those less fortunate. I guarantee you that if you looked at the States with the lowest taxes, you would find that the lower the taxes are in a State the more the people of that State give to charity on average. Considering how godless America is compared to 100 years ago that is somewhat surprising to see.

I don’t deny the part you put emphasis in about lower levels of government. I agree with that. But if you also look in states where taxes are the lowest you will notice higher poverty rates. Because there is such a sense of individualism in America and not a high sense of solidarity.

The closer to socialism/communism you get in your views the less you believe in people, and the more you see them as naturally evil. A strong centralized government is a sign that the people under that government are weak, because if they were not weak they would not need a government to overlook and control the charity process.

So I better get far away and go to liberal capitalism? I won’t do that because the Church doesn’t view liberal capitalism or neoliberalism as being very great either.

 

[buffalo]

Catholicism is the law of life, the life of the intelligence, the solution of all problems. Catholicism is the truth, and everything that departs from it one iota, is disorder, deception, and error.” Juan Donoso Cortes, Marquis of Valdegamas

Position ------------- Source of Injustice

Liberalism -----------Political institutions
Socialism -----------Social structures
Catholicism-------- Man himself

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Catholicism is the law of life, the life of the intelligence, the solution of all problems. Catholicism is the truth, and everything that departs from it one iota, is disorder, deception, and error.” Juan Donoso Cortes, Marquis of Valdegamas

Lol.

It’s a shame Catholicism has led to so much corruption and injustice. But, it’s okay. I know they weren’t real Catholics.

 

[Bill_7154]

To those who believe private charity is enough.

I would be interested in YOUR thoughts on this, reading what your thoughts, opinions, views, arguments are. If you would do that, instead of quoting someone else, we might actually be able to discuss as Catholics (if you are one) or as 2 human beings who both presumedly want to see their neighbors do well and receive necessary assistance in helping them do well (assuming you want this as I do). We may also be able to discuss the ways we agree and the ways we disagree. And then either one or both of us may learn something which in turn we can use to help our neighbor do better in life.

I’m interested in hearing what your personal thoughts and beliefs are on the matter. If you choose to quote scripture we can certainly take that into account as well. I am not familiar with particular scripture, only the general message of the new testament, but am open to and interested in learning. I am in the process, on my own personal journey to becoming closer to God and Jesus.

I have opinions based on my own personal exerience as living as a homeless person receiving assistance from ‘government’ programs. I have my personal experience receiving assistance from ‘private funded’ programs when homeless. I also have 20 years experience working for companies funded by the government and 10 years experience working for a company funded by private donations. This, and my limited understanding of what the Bible teaches, is where I draw my opinons from, my views from. That as well as my own education from life.

So please share on a personal level with me what your views are on the matter. Maybe my views are incorrect. I am certain they are not perfect. But I am also pretty certain that my experience has taught me a lot about what helps people in the long term and what is proported to help them but keeps them dependent, draining limited resources and think I have a few idea’s on ways to improve upon the status quo to use the limited resources available to do MORE good than is currently being done by government as well as do LESS HARM than is currently bing done by government.

 

[Bill_7154]

Father Kammer says this: “No charity has the resources to be the long-term support of needy families. That is a role which government fulfills through a complex web of social programs–from Social Security and Medicare to Supplemental Security Income, veterans’ benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.”

But that is just the problem. The first sentence gets it correct–no charity has the resources to be the long-term support of needy families over an indefinite period of time. The unacknowledged corrollary is, neither does the federal government have the resources to accomplish that over an indefinite period of time.

He goes on to list precisely those federal programs which are becoming fiscally insolvent.

Is it really ethical to make promises which cannot be kept?

And what is not mentioned here is that it is possible (and my believe and personal experience) that government actively HARMS people with some of the money they use to supposedly ‘help’. Additionally, every dollar the government gets it’s hands on is a dollar the private charities can not use to help others.

Add those 2 things up and immagine a system where a agency or agencies actually used it’s monies in the MOST productive way to help others, with doing the least harm.

If 50 billion a year is wasted by government on beaurocracy (wild example to simply make a point) and 50 billion a year is used in a way that trains people who could be trained to be more self sufficient but instead is used to train them to be less self sufficient and more dependent, that’s 100 billion a year doing harm and not available to do good.

Private charities are forced to compete for money. So it’s hard for a terrible, scam charity to grow very large. But since government forces people to pay, it is extremely easy for them to do a terrible job, then just charge more to supposedly fix the problem they created in the first place. And what is the recourse? I get to put a piece of paper with a name in a suggestion box every couple of years? Me think this is not a solution.

 

[Bill_7154]

IIt’s hard to be a real conservative and an American. American politics are really a fight between two branches of the liberal tradition.

The problem, as I see it, is that it is not conservative vs. liberal, it’s the government vs. YOU (and Me/Us).

If government were so good at fixing problems they would not have to point guns at people to get money for them to do what they do. It is not a Christian way to go about doing business.