From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Subject: Charity vs. gov't handouts.  (was Re: Abandoning the Sinking SghipII
Organization: (none)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:51:39 GMT

In article <BtzDsv.Bt6@csn.org> rks@teal.csn.org (Reykja K. Sigurdsson) writes:
>    ... leaving the country ...
>...[Most of discussion elided.]
>...
>A large part of my decision to leave
>is based on the fact that the only people who have value in this society
>are wealthy. One can work all of his/her life and still end up on the
>street because of an illness or other disaster. Look at what is happening
>to the folks in Florida. Bush wants to take up donations to house and
>feed those *tax-paying* people -- who now must depend on charity! 

There are several assumptions implied by the view expressed here
(and elsewhere):

	- that the payment of taxes somehow entitles one to compensation for
	damages caused by natural disasters (such as the Florida hurricane).

	- that someone's legitimate needs constitute not only a reason
	for others to decide to help, but that they actually constitue
	a claim on the life, liberty, and property of others.

	- that "donations" are NOT a respectable way for people to help
	other people (but that coercively-obtained taxation IS!).

	- that "charity" freely given is INSULTING to the recipient,
	but federal handouts of involuntarily-given tax money is NOT.

	- that it is appropriate to decide the worthiness or unworthiness
	of a charitable cause by a democratic process (i.e. majority vote
	of population or by elected representatives), and that those
	causes, needs, or victims not chosen are unworthy of support.

Of course these assumptions are not stated, because when made explicit 
they sound objectionable.  Nevertheless, these are precisely the assumptions
that underlie so many statements made by politicians, media, and ordinary 
citizens.  I find these notions vile and despicable, but they are rarely
made explicit and remain unquestioned.

I would like to see some discussion of these notions, on the net.
Any comments????
________________

Another assumption made not only by the poster but by press, politico,
and public alike, is the following:

	- that it is the job of the President to decide what should be 
	handed out (or not) from the Federal treasury, who should get it,
	and who should not.  
	
This one, at least, is more understandable.  Not only are many people
happier when they are spared the burden of helping others, they are also
more commfortable when they are spared the responsibility of deciding
between worthy causes.  

From the politician's point of view, of course, this assumption seems
obvious, appropriate, and unquestioned.  Notice that, after upping the payout
from 70% to 100% of damages in Florida, Bush then went to Texas and promised
more money for former Defense workers.  Next, he announced higher subsidies
for farmers.  each group cheered -- but they didn't read his lips:  he 
neglected to tell each group that they would be also have to pay for what 
he had just given away to the other two groups.  But that's exactly the
nature of today's political system.  Charity is worthy BECAUSE it is a
gift freely given.  Government "gifts" are quite different:  it's very
painless to hand out SOMEBODY ELSE's money.  Why the Hell should Bush
(or whoever) be able to collect the gratitude for "giving" somebody the 
money that he merely collected from somebody else?!

Of course, Clinton also had to make himself visible, too.  
He didn't want anybody to think he was pro-hurricane.

Marrou sensibly stayed out of it, in accordance with his view of
the 3 parties:  

	The Demoblicans say:  Give us your money; we'll solve your problems.
	The Replicrats say:  Give us your money; we'll ignore your problems.
	The Libertarians say:  Keep you money; solve your own problems.

(Marrou also said that the Ds want to be your Mommy - wipe your nose, make 
sure you eat all your veggies; Rs want to be your Daddy - make sure you stay
on the straight and narrow, or else; Ls just want to treat you like an adult.)

BTW, I see nothing in the media coverage about whether the Florida victims
had insurance, and if not why not?  If the rules of the game now are that any
victim of misfortune is entitled to compensation whether or not he could have
taken protective measures, then what is the point of choosing to have
insurance.  If the new rules are that the government is responsible to help,
then why bother having charities like Red Cross, etc.?

  [I don't want to get paranoid or anything, but why was this Florida 
  hurrcane so special?  I do not recall similar national media coverage
  nor charity after the two (Gloria and Bob) which hit my island during
  the past several years (nor about Hugo, which more recently hit another
  area).  Impacts on some homes and individuals were just as severe.

  In my own case, the insurance company reimbursed me for nearly all of
  my losses.  The premiums I paid were probably less than the portion of 
  my taxes that goes to support government programs that compete with 
  companies that sell insurance to cover the same thing.  Friends and
  neighbors helped a lot, too.  (And vise versa.)

  I was lucky.  House was unusable for only 2 weeks, roof smashed by big
  trees, etc. but walls intact.  But I'm 100' above sea level.  Folks on 
  the shore had homes totally demolished or washed away!  I don't recall 
  any Federal assistance, other than some new rates for flood insurance and
  -- would you believe -- a time extension for filing federal Income taxes!.
  But then Gloria chose to arrive here in a non-election year.]

Now, I have no quarrel with use of unique govt. resources, like armories,
boats, helicopters, National Guard, etc. (altho there was hardly any of this
after Gloria or Bob).  My peeve is that we have come to view the government
as the provider and dispenser of help for those in need.  This is a
perversion and a the noble notion of helping one another and it debases 
the individual's charitable concern for his fellow man.

bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)         BAM    [My opinions belong to me only,
Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus.  ~~~    and they represent no one else.]
# include discaimers.h+copyright.h    ~o~  Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment now!
# delete BUSHLIPS&&SlickWillie        /|\  Marrou/Lord in '92.  (800) 682-1776
Newsgroups: alt.pagan