Private charity assumes that those with more have the right to determine the causes worthy of their support. It assumes an absolute right to property, "my stuff is mine" and "I give only as I see fit, to those I deem worthy, the amounts I determine".
Yeah, I am far more comfortable with institutionalised charity.
There is a collective claim to 'your stuff'. You are not absolutely entitled to it...
The US expression: "My/your tax dollars": they are note mine/yours. They are 'ours', all of 'ours', owned collectively. That they may have at one point resided with you is incidental...
In particular the privilege of "private" ownership of "Commons" such as Land and Knowledge.
I have yet to come across any convincing refutation of the proposition that those who have exclusive rights of use of a "Commons" (rights which I agree may be necessary) should compensate those they exclude.
I find "Charity" as wounding a concept as "Welfare". Every citizen IMHO has a right to a part of the fruits of the "Commonwealth".
It's not so much about RE-Distribution - more about PRE Distribution. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
What we do in the welfare state is we decide collectively that we do not want those less fortunate to live in squalor, and hence we help them.
And with less fortunate I do not mean those who are born in poor families, but those who become less fortunate, no matter in which social class they began (as we have decided that class mobility is a good thing and have state funded education, free of charge for students).
We Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I was advocating the equitable sharing of the fruits of "the Commons". And I have yet to see a convincing refutation of that as a principle.
Private "ownership" of land, knowledge and other Commons are privileges, and those in receipt of these privileges should not keep all the benefits.
Whether such pre-distribution will be enough for a generally acceptable standard of living for the un-privileged depends on how developed a country is, I guess. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
The issue is that "liberals" don't believe in the right to an outcome, they believe in the right to "fair rules". Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
I hate vowel length. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
