From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Charity (Re: Ignorance
Summary: Point/counterpoint
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:20:43 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <fTC=c2-@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu                                          writes...
>In article <1992Nov12.015128.20902@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov12.002726.24327@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>|> >In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
>|> > 
>|> >In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to 
>|> >take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take 
>|> >care of him.) I do think the government should protect 
>|> >people from criminal invasions of their rights, and (I suppose,
>|> >although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
>|> >protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.
>|> > 
>|> Although I do agree with you, Frank, when it comes to individual rights,
>|> I must dissent on your personal isolationism (not that I'm saying you
>|> must reject your "I am an island" stand. It's your choice). What I am saying
>|> is that we have certain responsibilities to our fellow man, whether we 
>|> like it or not. People should take care of themselves if they are capable,
>|> even required to, but sometimes you can't (whether it's from hard times,
>|> or from prolonged sickness, or whatever).
>|> 	What are we, as a society, to do when some people can't make
>|> on their own no matter what they try to do? Let them starve? What kind of
>|> society is it, that would let someone starve when there is wealth all 
>|> around them? 
> 
>No, we shouldn't, and most people wouldn't.  We aren't faced with a 
>choice of government charity or no charity, there is the very real
>alternative of private charity.  Most people are charitible.  Its
>one reason why the government functions in part as a charity.  The
>biggest problem is that the government is not an effective mechanism
>for charity.  
  At the most, government should provide a
>backstop for private charitable activities.  Under a completely
>private charity system, there is bound to be a free rider problem.
>For this reason, I feel it is legitimate for government to provide 
>a small level of funds to those in need.  In essence, I agree with
>Milton Friedman's position outlined in his book "Capitalism and Freedom",
>as well as "Free to Choose".  I believe his negative income tax
>proposal as a replacement for all the various welfare programs we
>have today would be a vast improvement over what we currently have.
>Private organizations should be the primary source for charity, government
>should be secondary, not the other way around.

If private charity could supply all the needs of America today then
I would back up your statement 100%, but I don't believe it can. I don't
believe it has close to the amount of resources neccessary. (If you 
could supply information comtrary to this I would be interested)
> 
>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Newsgroups: ba.politics