Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:18:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1098 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
>
> Ed Jones wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> >
> > > I think that in a perfect liberatopia, all three of these people would
> > > have no problem getting the care they need, through charity.
> >
> > So you are saying that these people have the right to the care that they need.
> > Isn't charity the giving of free goods? Are you saying that these people have
> > a right to free goods?
>
> He didn't say a right; he said they would _probably_ receive charity.
It should also be said that charity doesn't automatically mean "free"
goods. Habitat for Humanity is very definitely a charity, but they don't
give away houses. They ask their benneficiaries to help build the house
and in general to show responsibility. In exchange, they get very
favorable loan terms, and the house is cheaper because a lot of
volunteer effort went into it. People give (time and/or money) to
Habitant for Humanity because overall, their method works. Most Habitat
clients are on an upward path, and respond favorably to the respect
given them (that I think is the single biggest commodity (good) that
Habitat gives, this commodity gives the clients the self respect to go
out and make a better world for themselves and their family). Another
good example of a good charity is that group in India (?) which makes
loans to poor women so they can start a buisiness, again, what is being
given is respect, and a low cost loan.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
