Quote:
I would say it's more of a counter-argument against socialists claiming that redistribution policies are charity.

Do some socialists really claim that? I'm a socialist, economically speaking, and I don't at all perceive (say) free health-care for all paid for by taxation as being the same thing as charity. Individual charitable donation is always going to be biased towards headline-grabbing causes and emotional appeal, whereas the welfare state stands IMO a better chance of distributing benefit according to the recipients' needs as opposed to the donor's whims. Charity is a much less effective way than welfare for improving the human condition. (How many childrens' charities, among the millions they spend looking after children obviously unwanted by their parents, spend anything on sex education or the availability of contraception or abortion?)

Quote:
Forcefully taking someone else's hard-earned cash and spending it for them is not charitable, and it isn't right.

I agree it's not the same thing as charity, but I think it's still right. And these are democracies we're talking about here: if nobody in the US wanted to pay tax, they'd just have to elect the No-Taxes Party to power. In the UK, and I believe in the US too, there are both more-taxing and less-taxing political parties available on each side of the party currently in power, so it's hard to argue that these countries haven't deliberately chosen the extents of their respective welfare systems.

In palaeoanthropology, one of the few indicators that can be derived from hominid remains about the existence of civilisation, is when skeletons are found with old injuries or progressive diseases severe enough that they couldn't hunt etc. for themselves, so that other individuals must have looked after them for some time. It seems a shame that there are still modern civilised societies where some individuals do not receive that human consideration.

Peter


Edited by peter (18/11/2006 14:38)