b3ta.com talk
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 6631019 (Thread)

Now, as reactionary as you've all been
I'm not saying I'm against the entire idea of charity. Well, I am, because I believe that a perfect society should rationally distribute funds to the necessary areas via government, but as that's never going to happen, charities need to exist. But they don't need to be patronised and belittled by idiots wasting their time doing fruitless exercises just to guilt us into parting with our hard-earned. If the cause is worthy enough, you should donate without having to be goaded into it, no matter how well-intentioned the time-waster.
(I helped save b3ta! Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:01, archived)
yeah this once i was donating money and i thought
fuck me i mean
i could be working in a power plant and
get more shit done.
(I helped save b3ta! Sir Sand GOBLIN ^popular page dis, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:02, archived)
DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY

(I helped save b3ta! Sir Sand GOBLIN ^popular page dis, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:03, archived)
yes, pretty much

(I helped save b3ta! Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:07, archived)
DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY DISGUSTING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY

(I helped save b3ta! Sir Sand GOBLIN ^popular page dis, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:08, archived)
Do you know Albert Marshmallow?

(likeajackhammer, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:08, archived)
As much as I'm all for the government spending where it's needed,
the nationalisation of kindness would be a terrible thing. The only reason the government has this kind of moral duty is because we, as individuals, delegate those duties to it. The government is necessarily lacking in this regard because the only alternative is for it to control every single aspect of our personal expenditure, and that would be a terrifying assault on humanity.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:10, archived)
In this particular case, stroke research, government funding in that area of medicine would be a priority
this has nothing to do with kindness, but responsibility.
Controlling every aspect of expenditure is Communism, which, for all its failings, is not "a terrifying assault on humanity" but simple a cumbersome and flawed method of channeling the money flow. If Scandinavia takes 40% of your income immediately and over 20% of the value of all your other purchases, that must also come shockingly close to a terrifying assault on humanity as well.
(I helped save b3ta! Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:20, archived)
because China and Cuba are at the forefront of cancer/stroke/etc research?

(likeajackhammer, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:25, archived)
now if you go back and read, hubare
I'm openly acknowledging that governments fail to divert necessary funds to the appropriate areas. But I'm deeply sickened by people wheeling out their dead mothers and running pointless races rather than doing something productive to change that.
(I helped save b3ta! Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:27, archived)
sorry Wolfie

(likeajackhammer, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:33, archived)
taking away all individual freedom to perform acts of kindness
is a terrifying assault on humanity whether you call it Communism or not. Communism proper is many things, and there are many things it is accused of being that it isn't. But any powerful and highly centralised form of government turns people into machines when it replaces good will with legal obligations. It's not only unworkable, it's abhorrent.

Now I'm no capitalist. I don't believe that might makes right, or in the natural law of survival of the fittest, or in the invisible hand. But I do believe in human dignity. I believe that people should help each other out, because they want to, not submit themselves completely to the service of some self-righteous oligarchy.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:33, archived)
As much as I understand your fear of a government impinging on one's rights to be "kind"
I'm not advocating the banning of charity or "kindness" as you've so charmingly twisted it. Charity is simply the voluntary donation of funds to causes you feel need it more than you. If a government is willing to admit it has moral responsibilities towards its citizens in some areas, say the current flavour of free healthcare and education to a certain level, then surely adding other elements of medical research, support for orphans, and victims of abuse are worthy forwards steps rather than the idea you're suggesting.
(I helped save b3ta! Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:41, archived)
The government has no moral responsibilities that are not also individual responsibilities.
All moral responsibility the government has has been delegated to it by individuals because some causes are served better by collectives than by individuals working alone. Donating money to charities also serves that end. The government essentially is a charity, but with the practical difference that you can't choose not to donate to it whether you agree with it or not. And what's left over is the purest form of democracy there is.

A government has to admit that it has moral responsibilities, because it is nothing else. What it does not have is the moral right to rule. It rules, properly, by public grace alone.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:46, archived)
and yet we have government agencies to approve charities
thereby transferring at least some of the responsibility of those entities to a central government. Increasing taxes to support that idea to the next step is hardly a social abhorrence, unless you want a completely private market to begin with, including private health and education.
(I helped save b3ta! Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:58, archived)
Governments supporting charities is a daft idea,
either you create a government department to do something or you let the people fund it themselves. This mixing up of the two ideas makes very little sense.

Completely eliminating all public participation in the public good is an abhorrence. Completely eliminating centralised efforts would be, too. There's a balance in the middle, somewhere.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 23:05, archived)
which is why I said from the start I dont like charities. I'd prefer a proper public agency.
But don't use the word "public good." The public good comes from paying taxes and not cheating the system. By making the welfare of the needy a national agency you're not removing all aspects of kindness, not at all.
(I helped save b3ta! Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 23:08, archived)
The public good comes from good things being done.
The state does not, and cannot, have a monopoly on goodness.
You'd be removing a significant proportion of kindness if you banned charities and charitable giving, you'd be removing it completely if you banned all charitable actions as well. The ideal is not "all government" or "all charity", but co-existence. There has to be enough government strength to prevent the strong individuals dominating the weak, but not so much that people are reduced to naught in excess of blind subservience to the law.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 23:21, archived)
All?
I didn't say a word.
(I helped save b3ta! Undulating Tentacles of Love getting fun down to acceptable levels, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:29, archived)