Is there a difference between being a humanitarian versus a religious 'liberal?'

[St_Francis]

Taxation is not a crime! Extreme poverty is!

Wait a second–you are taking an analogy literally.

Neither being in poverty nor lacking the resources to fix poverty is a crime. Nor is doing what one can to alleviate poverty but recognizing one’s limitations in alleviating poverty a crime.

When we say, poverty is a crime, we are not saying it is a real crime, we are saying poverty is bad, just as crime is bad.

 

[St_Francis]

You certainly can be a humanitarian and still be politically or fiscally conservative.

For instance a businessman could build a pumping station with a small reservoir and irrigation system. The water could increase crop production and improve sanitation, both of which would help to lift the village out of poverty. To give the people a sense of ownership the businessman might lease it to a village for low cost with the village owning the water system in 10 years.

Now a liberal might object that it was private business asking for a small payment rather than a government so it can’t be humanitarian. Humanitarian does not require that everything is done for free, it simply means that one is interested in bettering a peoples’ lot in life. Its the whole concept of a hand up rather than a hand out.

As said earlier, a humanitarian sees a problem and does something about it. I do not think someone who sees a problem and tells others to do something about it qualifies as a humanitarian. Coercion does not change hearts.

While using tax policy *might *work in the very short term, it will eventually backfire. Instead of the rich pulling the poor up it would go the other way; the poor would overwhelm the rich and pull them down so that everyone would be wallowing in the same pool of mud. Eventually the resources of the rich would be exhausted. Even the poor in the US would eventually be pulled lower to bring the billions in poverty up to an equal level if we follow the standard humanitarian aid route.

Humanitarianism is an act of will, not something one is coerced to do.

(PS - don’t even get me started on how humanitarian government policies are often tied to population control)

C S Lewis, God in the Dock: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the ‘good’ of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

 

[weller2]

I would say that a liberal expects others to do something, conservatives expect the people with the problem to do something, and a humanitarian expects himself to do something.

Nicely put, but I’d rather say:

A liberal expects the government to pay for fixing the problem;
a conservative expects the people with the problem to pay for fixing the problem;
a humanitarian pays himself to fix the problem.

If humanitarian has enough money, he will be able to fix the problem (example: Bill Gates). Most humanitarians however do not have enough money, so they get stuck in an endless loop of supplying band-aid solutions.

A liberal has some good chances of fixing the problem, if he can navigate government bureaucracy. This is a very rare skill however, so most people who choose this route will lose sight of their mission and end up pushing papers.

A conservative will do nothing to fix the problem, because he expects the people with the problem to fix the problem themselves. But, if the people with the problem had the money to fix it, they would have fixed it long ago. Therefore, the very existence of the problem demonstrates the defeat of the consevative approach. However, conservatives do play an important role, because – by working to reduce government intervention – they fix problems which have been caused by the government intervention in the first place.

Thus, fixing the problem actually requires a delicate and balanced interplay of all three factions:

• humanitarians are needed to see the problems and provide an example
• liberals are needed to direct state machinery to fixing the problems identified by the humanitarians
• conservatives are needed to prevent the state machinery from using all the money to power itself (which it will do if left unchecked).

 

[Stephen168]

A liberal expects the government to pay for fixing the problem;
a conservative expects the people with the problem to pay for fixing the problem;
a humanitarian pays himself to fix the problem.

In which of the three groups do private charities belong?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Nicely put, but I’d rather say:

A liberal expects the government to pay for fixing the problem;
a conservative expects the people with the problem to pay for fixing the problem;
a humanitarian pays himself to fix the problem.

And a creative person, of whatever political affiliation and whatever personal income level, looks for long-term and untried ways to solve the problem, often involving and appealing to as many people as possible in that effort.


(Just FYI, I’ve never been terribly impressed with Bill Gates, on many levels and for many reasons. Many Americans seem awed by him. I do not share in the awe. Nor do I see him as “a problem-fixer.”)

 

[weller2]

In which of the three groups do private charities belong?

Humanitarian.

Unless a charity spends most money on its own management, then it is not a charity, but a fraud.

 

[Stephen168]

Humanitarian.

If conservatives don’t give money, because they believe the people should fix their own problems; and liberals don’t give money because they want the government to fix the peoples problems; where do charities get their money from: liberals or conservatives?

 

[SamH]

If conservatives don’t give money, because they believe the people should fix their own problems; and liberals don’t give money because they want the government to fix the peoples problems; where do charities get their money from: liberals or conservatives?

Lots of documentation shows the answer to that.

dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

Only after it became mainstream did “researchers” find the “Yeah But” answer.

 

[Abu]

weller2 #44
If humanitarian has enough money, he will be able to fix the problem (example: Bill Gates)

We need to avoid the evil designs here.

To “fix the problem” requires the right wisdom, understanding, counsel and fortitude.
Bill and Melinda Gates use their money in evil designs as well, while she rubbishes Catholic doctrine, as a Catholic.

Melinda Gates challenges Catholic teaching on contraception
CWN - July 09, 2012
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is set to unveil funding a sum in the hundreds of millions of dollars for a campaign to improve access to contraception in the developing world.
reuters.com/article/2012/07/10/us-contraception-gates-idUSBRE86917920120710

 

[mackbrislawn]

I’m personally do not consider myself to be a ‘liberal,’ and I do not like people labeling me as such, but I’m very attuned to humanitarian causes, such as the elimination of extreme poverty.

Do you have specific ideas to eliminate poverty? Something definite would be helpful.

As a side question, what are your own economic circumstances? If I am permitted to ask?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Do you have specific ideas to eliminate poverty? Something definite would be helpful.

Yes, I believe it all begins with corporations and government investing in people through education and subsequent decent paying jobs. Rich countries would need to help the poor countries, but it would be temporary and would pay great dividends when these people add to the economy, and new high-tech products are produced, mass production is increases and scientific research abounds. What a waste that 2.3 billion people live on less than $2 a day (USD)! These people ought to be working in meaningful and productive jobs!!!

As a side question, what are your own economic circumstances? If I am permitted to ask?

I’m currently living under the poverty level. My disability income is just enough to pay my bills, but I have been using some of my retirement money to help feed the homeless ($100 dollars per month) and to help a facebook friend living in a third-world country buy egg-laying chickens for food for her family. It’s not much, but it’s the best I can do at the moment. I usually see homeless people outside my church, and I say to myself: “Something needs to be done!!!”

 

[St_Francis]

The thing I don’t like about what you said is that the sole “large organization” you meention is government.

Before the Protestant Revolt destroyed what the Church had built up, it was he Church which provided the “social safery net,” and which went out into new lands to care for others.

When the rulers became Protestant, they stole all that the Church had built up to care for the needy.

I agree with Peter Kreeft’s idea that the government should focus on justice and it should be the Church which provides mercy.altho I realize at this point that it is somewhat unrealistic to hope for major change in that area.

Nicely put, but I’d rather say:

A liberal expects the government to pay for fixing the problem;
a conservative expects the people with the problem to pay for fixing the problem;
a humanitarian pays himself to fix the problem.

If humanitarian has enough money, he will be able to fix the problem (example: Bill Gates). Most humanitarians however do not have enough money, so they get stuck in an endless loop of supplying band-aid solutions.

A liberal has some good chances of fixing the problem, if he can navigate government bureaucracy. This is a very rare skill however, so most people who choose this route will lose sight of their mission and end up pushing papers.

A conservative will do nothing to fix the problem, because he expects the people with the problem to fix the problem themselves. But, if the people with the problem had the money to fix it, they would have fixed it long ago. Therefore, the very existence of the problem demonstrates the defeat of the consevative approach. However, conservatives do play an important role, because – by working to reduce government intervention – they fix problems which have been caused by the government intervention in the first place.

Thus, fixing the problem actually requires a delicate and balanced interplay of all three factions:

• humanitarians are needed to see the problems and provide an example
• liberals are needed to direct state machinery to fixing the problems identified by the humanitarians
• conservatives are needed to prevent the state machinery from using all the money to power itself (which it will do if left unchecked).

 

[MSSheBear]

Lots of documentation shows the answer to that.

dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

Only after it became mainstream did “researchers” find the “Yeah But” answer.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m currently living under the poverty level. My disability income is just enough to pay my bills, but I have been using some of my retirement money to help feed the homeless ($100 dollars per month) and to help a facebook friend living in a third-world country buy egg-laying chickens for food for her family. It’s not much, but it’s the best I can do at the moment. I usually see homeless people outside my church, and I say to myself: “Something needs to be done!!!”

Yes, something does need to be done, but not at your expense. We are commanded to love our neighbor “as ourselves,” not more than ourselves or at the expense of ourselves or at the risk of becoming (in retirement or before) homeless or merely dependent on others, so that the cycle merely continues, with different faces.

It is actually an act of charity to both people known to us and to strangers, to make sure we do not endanger our futures, as much as possible. And I don’t mean luxuries but necessities such as shelter, food, electricity. Many people in your situation provide labor to charitable organizations, rather than cash. Someone I know who is already retired drives delivery trucks for Meals on Wheels. It doesn’t cost him cash. Providing other kinds of labor, such as administrative or clerical, is also a possibility.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, something does need to be done, but not at your expense. We are commanded to love our neighbor “as ourselves,” not more than ourselves or at the expense of ourselves or at the risk of becoming (in retirement or before) homeless or merely dependent on others, so that the cycle merely continues, with different faces.

It is actually an act of charity to both people known to us and to strangers, to make sure we do not endanger our futures, as much as possible. And I don’t mean luxuries but necessities such as shelter, food, electricity. Many people in your situation provide labor to charitable organizations, rather than cash. Someone I know who is already retired drives delivery trucks for Meals on Wheels. It doesn’t cost him cash. Providing other kinds of labor, such as administrative or clerical, is also a possibility.

Thanks Elizabeth, but with sever anxiety, panic attacks and major depression, I’m really unable to leave my apartment.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thanks Elizabeth, but with sever anxiety, panic attacks and major depression, I’m really unable to leave my apartment.

All the more reason you should be more focused on preserving your own survival, while calling attention locally to such problems. Not massively. Locally. You will not be judged at the Particular Judgment as to whether you did the impossible all by yourself.

 

[Robert_Sock]

All the more reason you should be more focused on preserving your own survival, while calling attention locally to such problems. Not massively. Locally. You will not be judged at the Particular Judgment as to whether you did the impossible all by yourself.

I already thought it through, and my conscience tells me to donate to the best of my ability. What I’m doing now is reasonable, and I feel good about it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I already thought it through, and my conscience tells me to donate to the best of my ability. What I’m doing now is reasonable, and I feel good about it.

That’s all well and good. What’s not well and good is for you to project what your conscience considers “reasonable” onto what many, if not most, of us would find rather unreasonable. That’s what several posters perceived you as doing on one of your other threads, and that would not be what the Gospels or Epistles define as charitable; that would be a form of intimidation. (That is, many people would receive it as such.) Each person tends to know, after thought, what is and is not risky for self and/or family. It’s another reason why some Catholics (I’m not necessarily putting myself typically in that category) prefer a strong economy as a better solution than taxation “for the poor,” given that more people with more disposable income can then have more to give. I realize it doesn’t always work that way, but that’s the goal of many.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That’s all well and good. What’s not well and good is for you to project what your conscience considers “reasonable” onto what many, if not most, of us would find rather unreasonable. That’s what several posters perceived you as doing on one of your other threads, and that would not be what the Gospels or Epistles define as charitable; that would be a form of intimidation. (That is, many people would receive it as such.) Each person tends to know, after thought, what is and is not risky for self and/or family. It’s another reason why some Catholics (I’m not necessarily putting myself typically in that category) prefer a strong economy as a better solution than taxation “for the poor,” given that more people with more disposable income can then have more to give. I realize it doesn’t always work that way, but that’s the goal of many.

Sounds more conservative than humanitarian. Be honest, would you consider yourself to be more conservative and less humanitarian?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sounds more conservative than humanitarian. Be honest, would you consider yourself to be more conservative and less humanitarian?

I am being honest, and it’s this kind of question or insinuation that others can easily find offensive. (Implying that if I don’t respond in some stereotyped way which you expect, I am “being dishonest.”)

I consider myself a radical humanitarian. (It should be obvious from my last post that I just distinguished myself from conservatives.) I don’t fit into a mold, and I do not respect people of any affiliation who are unable to do anything but put people in categories, usually in stereotyped categories or labels. I see that a lot on this discussion forum, and in society at large.