Mercy should be a free gift that we all decide for ourselves, not each other. If our society is so self-centered that none of us want to give to the needy, which I think is largely the case (the realist part of me), then we have a problem. However, taking the money by force is not a good answer, IMO. The idealist in me says that we should work to influence people's hearts and minds so that mercy is important to them, not hold guns to their heads and say "you WILL give". That is only addressing a symptom (that the poor need money), not the problem (that we are an unmerciful people as a whole). What we do is keep addressing symptoms, some of which we can't even agree are symptoms. Some say that xyz is a problem, others don't even see the issue. How much better would it be if we could all decide for ourselves what the ills of society are and address them our of true mercy?
It would be better, but we
do have a problem you are talking about.
So, the fact that money for social programs etc is taken from you, instead of being given by you, spoils your sense of doing something merciful of your own free will. Well, too bad. The tone of your post shows that you are perfectly aware that 'merciful society' where all ills are addressed by individuals' voluntary action is wishful thinking. Such societies exist in places like
Ursula K. Le Guin's fantasy (which I highly respect), but in real world we abandoned them when we invented private ownership and power hierarchies.
In my opinion, subsistence-level income, basic health care and fair chance for education regardless of socio-economic status are
rights. If the state does not provide those rights, I have no use for state.
Previous Topic
Index
