Subject:
|
Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:01:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
286 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> And what, exactly, does it do for us? If charity is performed to achieve a
> space in heaven, then it's a simple economic transaction designed to favor
> oneself with a payoff disproportionate to the act of charity.
Generosity makes us better people (at least in my code of values--if it doesn't
in yours then there's nothing but for us to agree to disagree). If our
"generosity" is fueled only by a desire to earn a space in heaven, we are
buying, not giving. For Christians, the belief comes first, then the desire to
follow the teachings of that belief for their own sake, not for some cosmic
cash-for-salvation payola.
> On the contrary--public roads, public education, many government services, and
> a host of other programs contribute to the public good, which is a worthy end in
> itself, but which also contributes to additional public good in the form of
> increased accessibility (roads), increased opportunity (education), increased
> general welfare (gov't programs), etc.
But public good (which includes my own) isn't charity. There's no debating that
roads, public safety, education, accessible parking spaces for disabled
fleebnorks to buy DVDs at Best Buy, etc. are the government's responsibility and
indeed contribute to the public good. I'll take the meaning of charity as the
more fortunate (though I royally hate that word--because it implies that fortune
is the only controlling factor--I can't think of a better one now) helping out
the less fortunate (which the governor of Alabama is doing). Most of those
public good things arguably help out the wealthy more than the poor--law
enforcement to enforce property rights, transportation infrastructure to allow
them to vacation at McDisneyland, national defense to keep Canada from invading
us, etc. Where's the charity?
> You might cite government corruption or wasteful use of taxpayer money (such
> as a $4Billion/month oil war, for example), but I can as readily cite
> misappropriation of charitible donations (such as the huge salary paid to the
> former CEO of the Red Cross, to name just one example).
We can tit-for-tat on that all day, and it's tangential to the main discussion
anyway. But IMO most government programs are designed to purchase middle-class
votes at the expense of the rich or the poor, while charity is designed to aid
the needy, whether it's medically, spiritually, emotionally, or financially.
> I grant you that freemarketeers will denounce all of these public programs as
> The Great Satan, and that's an argument worth exploring, but it's tangential to
> what you and I are discussing.
Probably an interesting argument, but for another day--there are things that
government does far better than the private sector, and vice versa.
> You appear to be suggesting that my good works should be motivated by:
>
> A) A desire to placate a deity (which is a selfish motive)
My argument from the first paragraph applies here.
> B) A desire to "feel good" (which is a selfish motive)
No, a desire to BE a good person, not to just feel good. (Though it does feel
good to do good works!)
> C) Because *I* judge the recipient to be worthy (which is a selfish motive)
Absolutely your good works should be for a good and worthy cause. What's the
point if they're not?
> To be clear--I'm not suggesting that a selfish motive is a bad motive, but it's
> by definition not altruistic.
Agreed--generosity cannot come from selfishness!
> Additionally, you're stacking the deck in your favor by the way you're asking
> the question. You're identifying only the negative aspect of taxation (ie, the
> shortage of one's own funds) while identifying only the positive aspects of
> voluntary charitable giving (ie, the "good" feeling one gets). That's a
> strawman argument.
An oversimplification, granted, but it still supports my argument that
government is not charity.
> Let's look at it from the opposite perspective. At the end of the year, add up
> the money you've given to charity, and tell me what the return has been to you.
> Good feelings? Maybe, but so what? And then look at the public roads, the
> regulated food and medicine, the subsidized utilities, your computer, the
> Internet, and the education you enjoy (to name just a tiny few) and ask yourself
> what it would have cost you to purchase all those things for yourself on your
> own. Additionally, as a good citizen, you gain the satisfaction of knowing that
> your small tax burden has been used to help those less fortunate than you.
Besides the aqueducts, what has the government ever done for us? ;-)
The point of charity is not the return, it's the act of giving. I pay taxes
because it's my duty as a citizen and because of the return to me through
personal safety, public infrastructure, and life improvement, among others.
> You have objected that failure to pay taxes will result in imprisonment. That's
> true, but only if you continue to remain under the jurisdiction of the
> tax-levying system. You're absolutely free to leave the country and move to an
> area that doesn't collect taxes, and then you'll have that much more money to
> donate to your favorite charitable institution. Of course, you won't have
> access to the luxuries currently afforded you, but you're still welcome to
> remove yourself from the tax cycle. But if you want to continue to enjoy the
> tax-subsidized niceties of modern American life, then you should expect to have
> to meet your share of the cost (ie, pay your taxes); otherwise, you're just a
> squatter.
Reduction ad absurdio--you're making charity and government mutually exclusive.
(This is the best [deleted] country on the whole [expurgated] planet, and I
ain't goin' nowhere, either.) We pay taxes to do our duty to human authority,
and because it's the responsibility of the self-governed to finance that cost.
We should give to charity because generosity is part of the human character, if
not to show deference to higher-than-human authority for those so inclined--not
that there's anything wrong with that.
Still, the main focus of my argument is this:
-The Governor of Alabama has said that it is charitable to help the poor by
having the rich pay more taxes.
-Government and charity are not equivalent.
-Therefore, accepting higher taxation is not a charitable act.
-The governor is wrong.
Best regards,
Carl
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
