|
|
|
|
|
|
by BgSpnnrs
4662 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.