[BgSpnnrs]

This sounds, with all due respect, like libertarian mantra. How on earth do you propose to enable the poor to bring themselves above the poverty line without a centralised system to manage it?

You're completely correct that US government is wasteful, spends mindlessly on military, war aid and the appeasement of dubious lobbyists - that is not a problem with governance in general though! Furthermore, unless a redistribution of wealth and a welfare state is mandated through taxation and social programs there seems little hope of helping those at the very bottom who have been failed (or failed themselves) thanks to the incredibly tough odds they face compared to healthy, well-off, decently educated folk from stable backgrounds.

Sure, the rich aren't some distinct subspecies with little regard to humanity and philanthropy is not a forgotten art, but when stuff like this gets voted through you can see how broken the entire system is. A media which programs the poor to turn on itself, a rule of law which actively discriminates against the poor, a wage barrier that condemns those in low-level work to a life of constant stress and fear.

They are things that the people need to fix through their government. 'Shutting down everything' only really serves to help those who already are without the need of it.

->Potentially meandering off-topic and probably not that much of a direct reply to yhckrfan - apologies. I've not had coffee yet!

[dnautics]

>How on earth do you propose to enable the poor to bring themselves above the poverty line without a centralised system to manage it?

Using a decentralized system? Food banks, shelters. Get the grubby Fed paws off of it. Maybe the states should run them, even better if the cities did, or even better if good-minded citizens came together and pitched in without the state. Come on, you don't seriously think that the US Federal Government's social safety net is working, do you? We keep plowing more and more money into it and yet the divide between the rich and the poor is getting wider.

"unless a redistribution of wealth and a welfare state is mandated through taxation and social programs..."

Bastiat comes to mind: "[The socialists declare] that the State owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth. Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ... But is it possible? ... Whence does [the State] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary? ...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the State. The public treasury will be literally pillaged. Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success."

he was too generous. The suffering classes will ALMOST NEVER have success.

tl;dr: You think you're helping the poor, but if you're using the state to fix a problem, you're usually just lining the pockets of some wealthy or politically connected jerk who subcontracts the work, claiming to do the good works.

[BgSpnnrs]

I understand the ideology, but I fail to see how this can work in practice. I do think the US perspective is very different to my own due to the size of the nation, and that state level programs probably would be fairer and less wasteful than a federal taxation and implementation of welfare - it's still government though, it's merely done at state level. I think this is often the source of crossed wires when discussing politics over the Atlantic.

>The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success.

Certainly, but the same lament is surely magnified when the invisible, broken section of society is reliant on charitable acts...I'm not saying we are all terrible, greedy people but as you quote, we often assume the role of victim and feel hard done by whilst forgetting people who are far worse off than us:

>"Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs"

Being cynical about - particularly current - government is not an unfair judgement to make, but the problem is in the machine's details - tearing the whole thing down is like (to use an old cliche) throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[dnautics]

>we often assume the role of victim and feel hard done by whilst forgetting people who are far worse off than us

That is not what the bastiat quote means. The bastiat quote says that people will line up at the government trough and claim that what they are doing is for the "common good". The benefit of doing things privately is much like linus' law: that you have a million eyes reviewing and making the choice to contribute or not; versus a bureaucrat, who is of limited accountability to a narcissistic executive (or legislator) who doesn't give a rats butt about taking care of the people and is only held accountable by polarizing issues like abortion rights or gun control (in the US; but in every country you make compromises when you pick whom you elect).

Why do you suppose that government is any better at allocating money for charity? Do you really think that politicians are our betters? Why? In a democracy, politics is always a popularity contest - would you look back at the kids who were popular in high school, and say, "gee, these are the kids I'd trust to take care of the poor?". What about the kids that did stuff like class government or model UN? Or, in a country that's a lawyerocracy (like the US), the kids that did mock trial or debate club?

The effects of authority also should be examined. Consider that in any government you will disproporionately wind up attracting authoritarians to positions all over the chain of authority; and at the lower levels, the people who are directly dealing with the poor - are going to be the least accountable and have the lowest skill set. Is that really who you want taking care of the poor? Making low-level decisions that are affecting people's lives in very serious ways with few if any consequences for messing up? At least a private charity runs the risk of losing their donations if there's a publicized flub up.

I happen to think that to support the worst off you don't need the full cooperation of the entire society. You maybe need 1-5% or so fully committed, and 20% willing to give more than a modest amount, and 30 or so % willing to give small amounts.