And if we're not compassionate, or if it turns out we prefer only to help the people who look just like us, or if individual acts of charity don't turn out to be well-organized enough to really solve the problem of want, then other people will either die in the streets or (much more likely in this day and age) will revolt, and take what they need. So ultimately, the choice to give money is already made. The only residual choice is whether you prefer the IRS, or an actual starving person who's angry at you, to be holding the gun. Me, I prefer social decency, peace and progressive taxation - a fine American tradition.
As I understand it (I don't have the numbers in front of me), as society has become wealthier, charitable giving increased proportionally. Organizations such as the Red Cross, Hospitals, and Public Baths were created for public welfare completely from private donation. This changes significantly as the government begins to take on the role of charitable organization (around the Great Depression?).
My personal observations are that most people are charitable and are more than willing to give resources to those in need. However, people are not pleased about being forced to pay taxes, they become bitter and resentful of having the funds extracted by threat. We see this every tax season as people try to get as much money back as possible. I remember hearing a man say to someone "I gave at the office", indicating that they won't give to charity because they have already been taxed.
Is there a case where - if the state doesn't care for the poor - good things happen?
I think it is more important to ask if "bad things happen". I don't think much would change in terms of care for the poor (excepting transitional periods); the poor were cared for before the government got involved, and they would be cared for after the government got out of the business.
Hmm... more than I intended, but I am trying to be clear.
What other possible outcome could there be? Is there a case where - if the state doesn't care for the poor - good things happen?
My personal observations are that most people are charitable and are more than willing to give resources to those in need. However, people are not pleased about being forced to pay taxes, they become bitter and resentful of having the funds extracted by threat. We see this every tax season as people try to get as much money back as possible. I remember hearing a man say to someone "I gave at the office", indicating that they won't give to charity because they have already been taxed.
Is there a case where - if the state doesn't care for the poor - good things happen?
I think it is more important to ask if "bad things happen". I don't think much would change in terms of care for the poor (excepting transitional periods); the poor were cared for before the government got involved, and they would be cared for after the government got out of the business.
Hmm... more than I intended, but I am trying to be clear.