![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
And, Nin, is your opposition to charity based on the idea that it perpetuates a harmful cycle where the impoverished are made to feel more inferior, lowering their self-esteem, which exacerbates the poverty issue?
That is actually very easy: charity is a private decision and as such depends on persons willing to give it and on the values they decide to support and defend. As I consider living in dignity a basic human right, I think that it should not depend on any private decision or have any value attached to it, but be the charge and duty of society in its whole. So, I don't blame people who give their money to charity, but a system in which charity is necessary. It seems totally flawed to me.yovargas wrote:Yes, I am quite surprised. Why in the world?
For me there are two major flaws in that thought: what about those who can't "earn" their money: sick, mentally or physically ill, old, addicted, handicapped?yovargas wrote:
#1 - I If no one gives away money to the "undeserving", the undeserving still have the option to try to earn their money. My company does not "give" me money, they trade me money for my labor.
Those who cannot provide for themselves will always have to depend on the charity of others, regardless of the name or nature it takes.Nin wrote:For me there are two major flaws in that thought: what about those who can't "earn" their money: sick, mentally or physically ill, old, addicted, handicapped?
I'm curious - imagine, hypothetically, a word where humans were so generous and charitable and caring that private charity was able to 100% rid the world of poverty and financial struggles - would you still prefer that instead of individuals doing it themselves, this kind of redistribution was done by the gov't?Nin wrote:That is actually very easy: charity is a private decision and as such depends on persons willing to give it and on the values they decide to support and defend. As I consider living in dignity a basic human right, I think that it should not depend on any private decision or have any value attached to it, but be the charge and duty of society in its whole. So, I don't blame people who give their money to charity, but a system in which charity is necessary. It seems totally flawed to me.yovargas wrote:Yes, I am quite surprised. Why in the world?
Yes, absolutely.yovargas wrote:I'm curious - imagine, hypothetically, a word where humans were so generous and charitable and caring that private charity was able to 100% rid the world of poverty and financial struggles - would you still prefer that instead of individuals doing it themselves, this kind of redistribution was done by the gov't?
.Those who cannot provide for themselves will always have to depend on the charity of others, regardless of the name or nature it takes.
What if the gov't changes policies? What if it goes bankrupt? There are never any guarantees.Nin wrote:What if one of the donors dies and his inheritants will not follow his footsteps? What if some of the donors loose their wealth? I'm sorry, anything depending on private decision would not satisfy me.
I disagree rather profoundly. Regardless of who's doing it or where it's coming from, it's still charity. You can choose to call it something else but they are still depending on the goodwill of others, regardless of who those others are, to provide for them. If that goodwill disappears, and it very much can no matter what system you set up, then they do not have what they need.Nin wrote:No, those who cannot provide for themselves do not have to depend on charity. A pension for the elderly is not charity, it is a right. An insurance for handicapped or disabled persons is a right. Charity is not a right. It is not a difference in name, it is a difference in concept. For me, it is a crucial difference.
Well, it is a far higher level of guarantee. The highest any system can offer. And if I see how difficult it is to change an amendment like the 4th or a law like the death penalty - and how easy it is for donor to turn away from his promises, for me, the choice is easy.yovargas wrote:What if the gov't changes policies? What if it goes bankrupt? There are never any guarantees.
yovargas wrote:I disagree rather profoundly. Regardless of who's doing it or where it's coming from, it's still charity. You can choose to call it something else but they are still depending on the goodwill of others, regardless of who those others are, to provide for them. If that goodwill disappears, and it very much can no matter what system you set up, then they do not have what they need.
yovargas wrote:What if the gov't changes policies? What if it goes bankrupt? There are never any guarantees.Nin wrote:What if one of the donors dies and his inheritants will not follow his footsteps? What if some of the donors loose their wealth? I'm sorry, anything depending on private decision would not satisfy me.
I disagree rather profoundly. Regardless of who's doing it or where it's coming from, it's still charity. You can choose to call it something else but they are still depending on the goodwill of others, regardless of who those others are, to provide for them. If that goodwill disappears, and it very much can no matter what system you set up, then they do not have what they need.Nin wrote:No, those who cannot provide for themselves do not have to depend on charity. A pension for the elderly is not charity, it is a right. An insurance for handicapped or disabled persons is a right. Charity is not a right. It is not a difference in name, it is a difference in concept. For me, it is a crucial difference.
(As I side note, I have no idea what most people mean by the word "right". It is usually used in a way that I genuinely have no comprehension of, including in this post.)
So is there a difference between a law and a right?Nin wrote:A "right" for me is something that is guaranteed to you by law. Simple definition.
You have the right to an attorney. I'd say the right is that everyone gets to have an attorney if they are charged with a crime. The law explains the right, and guarantees it (i.e., there is legal recourse if you are denied that right).yovargas wrote: So is there a difference between a law and a right?
"Law" is a very specific term that refers to a legally binding rule established by a constitutional provision, statute, or a court decision. "Right" is a much more ambiguous term that could refer to: something specifically codified as law such as Cerin's example of "you have a right to an attorney," which in the U.S. system is codified specifically in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; an interpretation of a law such as "you have a right to remain silent" which is not stated in the Constitution or in any statute, but is considered a legally binding right based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment in Miranda v. Arizona; or a more amorphous concept such as the right to "the pursuit of happiness" referred to in the Declaration of Independence, which is obviously not capable of being legally binding in any way.Primula Baggins wrote:I hope Voronwë will weigh in.
Ah, I see. I agree with this. I've said before that in my perfect world, there would be no charitable organizations; not because no one had needs, but because the system would be constructed in a way that made them redundant.Nin wrote:That is actually very easy: charity is a private decision and as such depends on persons willing to give it and on the values they decide to support and defend. As I consider living in dignity a basic human right, I think that it should not depend on any private decision or have any value attached to it, but be the charge and duty of society in its whole. So, I don't blame people who give their money to charity, but a system in which charity is necessary. It seems totally flawed to me.