Comments on: Charity vs the Welfare State

By: matt the moderate

matt the moderate — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:08:23 +0000

I dont see anything wrong with making sure that evryone has enoughf food to eat. I do belive that the welfare system may be bieng abused in some cases however theres not much we can do to fix that. You speak of self reliance but what about the children or the disabled? They dont have the same oppurtunitys to be reliant that many other Americans enjoy. i do not advocate the equal sharing of wealth however as a church going child i cant help but think that we have a responsibility to take care of those who cant take care of themselves. Further the welfare sytem was desighed to be a temporary helping hand to those in need. That doesnot nessarily buid reliance upon it.

By: J.D.

J.D. — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:23:45 +0000

Honker: The GOP has utterly abandoned the principles of limited self-government. Didn’t you get the memo?

“Big Government Conservativism”! Woo-hoo!

Of course, the only thing that will be conserved under Big Government Conservativism is Big Government.

Sedonoman: The problem at this point is that people have grown so spiritually and psychologically tied to the notion of having their problems solved by an elite class– be they Republican or be they Democrat– that subsidiarity is now totally alien to them.

I find it an interesting contrast to contemplate– subsidiarity mirrors the organic functions of living creatures, whereas centralization (whether government or corporate) mirrors the behavior of an impersonal and soulless machine.

By: g8r hed

g8r hed — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:59:46 +0000

The last few nights we have been reminded of the demise of charity on national TV. Has anyone else seen the “ALMOST GIVE” public service announcements by the National Ad Counsel? The announcements show the results of what happens when people ‘almost give’ instead of completing an act of charity.
One announcement shows troubled youth with heads bowed down, leaning against an old car and dressed in shabby clothing standing around idly kicking pebbles in the dust. They are presumably delinquents with no place to go because charitable folk did not contribute to build them a recreational complex. The final frame of the announcement is a white screen with large letters of the word “G I V E”.

It reminded me of another passage from Harper’s source quoted above:
“When a taxpayer is forced to contribute to ‘charity’ in spite of his judgement of need, he will increasingly shun the sense of responsibility which is requisite to the spirit of compassion; he will lose compassion as he more and more accepts the viewpoint: ‘That is the government’s business!’”

So, not only does government, theif that it is, fail in the cause of charity, it also infects the heart and mind of the individual which is the font of true compassion under liberty.

Have we come so far down the bumpy track of socialism that the government must entreat citizens to give? Worse yet, have we as good citizens thrown off the cloak of liberty and responsibility that fosters true compassion and charity? Surely, we must learn – and teach – anew the basic tenets of liberty which government and collectivism have winnowed from the once-fertile pastures of a free people.

By: William Woodford

William Woodford — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 03:09:06 +0000

“An equal share of everyone’s wealth”? This sounds very much like the equal division of wealth schemes correctly denounced as “wicked” by Madison in Federalist 10.

By: sedonaman

sedonaman — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:57:16 +0000

Subsidiarity – Pius XI

“To help those in need, it is often required to work towards structural change in society. This is not the prerogative only of government officials. In fact, the church has reminded governments that each substratum of society has an appropriate role. The need for vital contributions from different human associations – ranging in size from the family to government – has been classically expressed in Catholic social teaching in the principle of ‘subsidiarity’. Subsidiarity has been defined by Pope Pius XI in his classical encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno:

“’Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time, a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help (subsidium) to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.’”

Ref: Kevin E. McKenna, You Did It For Me, p 120.

By: Honker

Honker — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:50:47 +0000

“There is no end to such regulation under a nanny state. A Congress that doesn’t impose new regulations, create more welfare benefits, adn drive the nation deeper into debt is regarded as a failure.”

The real fight is such an administration used to be called liberal or democrat. The Bush family has changed that. With no guilt or purpose the Bush family has taken a once proud party with ideals and goals which representated limited government combined with self-responsibility and mangled it into a party of spend and steal, morally bankrupt, self-serving fatcats with no remembrance of what made the GOP great.
Who will fight for fiscal conservatives in the GOP?

By: g8r hed

g8r hed — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:36:43 +0000

On socialism and the welfare state:
“The virtue of compassion and charity cannot be sired by the vice of theivery” – F.A.Harper from his book “Liberty: A Path to It’s Recovery”