Wow, golly, I just can't go on livern, I tell ya what? Oh no, what's wrong, sir? The world would be better off without me. I'm selfish, I've done nothing for the poor. Why would you say that? I don't work for the government. Come again. According to your record, you've done all sorts of good things for the community. Volunteered at soup kitchens, cleaned up litter, looked after family and friends, even ran a small business which employed people. I'd say you've had a pretty positive impact. But I'd have been able to do so much if I had just worked for a government agency. It's true, you'll never be as good a person as me. Hmm, I don't know about that. What if the best way to contribute to the well-being of the community is without government? Oh, golly, this is where I used to help feed the Navy. Sure is, and you did a whole lot better than some public agency ever could. Volunteering for private charities is a great way for community members to help one another. Isn't that the best feeling in the world? Sure is. One of the most meaningful and personal things Laura has to feel. That's right, in a lot of times, government programs that seek to help the poor create an ineffective and personal environment, where it's impossible to put a face to who's helping you and who's being helped. But charity is most successful when it's personal. 71% of all contributions the charity are from private individuals. And that number rises to 80% if you include all the money the deceased have left to charities in their will. But private individuals are great. The only way we can real act as a community is through government. Nope, in fact, this last year in the US, charitable donations exceeded $390 billion, which is an all-time high. But the government spends roughly one trillion on the war on poverty every year. How can the market compete? How did you know that? Who just knows that? You have a lot of statistics. It's okay, I do too. Government programs are far less effective than private charities. Not only for the reasons laid out earlier, but because roughly 70% of all money budgeted for government assistance gets spent upholding and maintaining the bureaucracies charged with the task of helping the poor. When you pay taxes for the war on poverty, it's more likely that your money will end up in the pocket of a middle-class public sector worker than with a poor person in need. Well, that doesn't sound good for the community at all. They really only end up spending 30% of all the money they receive on the poor? Yep, now compare that to private charities, which only spend 30% of infrastructure and employees and the other 70% of them. Well, gosh. It's almost as if communities will care for their own without being forced by the government. I guess I am helping the community, and I shouldn't jump off this bridge. No, people have paid us hearts. You can't trust them to help each other on their own. You should jump off the bridge. You should jump off the bridge and you should do a backflip. Ugh, this guy. Well, it's true that people are sometimes greedy, but if that's the case, what's to prevent individuals operating from within the state system from being greedy themselves? Politicians are people too, you know. That's a good point. At the end of the day, every community is its own unique complex ecosystem, which knows best how to fulfill its own needs. And most importantly, community is, by definition, voluntary. You can't really force someone to be a part of your community through laws and regulations. Oh, gosh, I guess you're right. What I help the community, I do so because I care about those around me. Not because the government bullied me into doing so. Oh, you fools! There are so many people who need your help. I mean, what kind of people would you be if you didn't contract bureaucrats hundreds of miles away to do the work for you? Good members of the community. Hey folks, thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed this, please check out feed.org for similar content and more information. Thanks again.