The new face of government dependency: Meals on Wheels

He didn't say that at all - he contested a particular model of providing charity, and proposed an alternative model of his own. He warned of the dangers of the current model, which is why he thinks another model is necessary.

So private donations to a private charity like Meals on Wheels is wrong?

Never thought I'd hear you say it.
 
He didn't say that at all - he contested a particular model of providing charity, and proposed an alternative model of his own. He warned of the dangers of the current model, which is why he thinks another model is necessary.


He condemned an effective way of helping people as some grand conspiracy of evil while suggesting a substitute with a 100% failure rate at providing effective benefits.
 
He condemned an effective way of helping people as some grand conspiracy of evil while suggesting a substitute with a 100% failure rate at providing effective benefits.

Private charity doesn't have a 100% failure rate. Ideologically blinkered? Not much!
 
Private charity doesn't have a 100% failure rate. Ideologically blinkered? Not much!


There is a 100% failure rate of private charity to meet the needs of the dependent population for even bare survival over 1000s of years of history. Objectively, you should know that.
 
There is a 100% failure rate of private charity to meet the needs of the dependent population for even bare survival over 1000s of years of history. Objectively, you should know that.

Well, as the government wasn't meeting their needs either over that same time period, then the failure you just mentioned can be applied to government also.

Besides which, tbh you seem to be as guilty of over-simplification and distorting to extremes as the OP is.
 
Well, as the government wasn't meeting their needs either over that same time period, then the failure you just mentioned can be applied to government also.

Besides which, tbh you seem to be as guilty of over-simplification and distorting to extremes as the OP is.


Most of the time the government wasn't trying. Which, yes, is a failure. However, just to use the American example, when the US federal government finally took a major hand in welfare is the beginning of the time that the welfare mostly worked to preserve life and provide something better than mass hunger. Nothing before that ever did. So the objection being raised is against the most effective charity this nation has ever seen.

In fact, the only effective charity this nation has ever seen.

Nothing before it worked. And now he wants to dismantle the only thing that has ever worked, and then imagines that something that has a 100% failure rate in the past will suddenly have success now.

That is not Objective reality.
 
Most of the time the government wasn't trying. Which, yes, is a failure. However, just to use the American example, when the US federal government finally took a major hand in welfare is the beginning of the time that the welfare mostly worked to preserve life and provide something better than mass hunger. Nothing before that ever did. So the objection being raised is against the most effective charity this nation has ever seen.

In fact, the only effective charity this nation has ever seen.

Nothing before it worked. And now he wants to dismantle the only thing that has ever worked, and then imagines that something that has a 100% failure rate in the past will suddenly have success now.

That is not Objective reality.

Please quit with the exaggerated claims to 100% failure rate of private charity. I've already pointed out that government had a 100% failure rate by the same metric - it wasn't until recentlt that governments had the wealth to take on mass welfare programs. It got that wealth because of improving technology in production, meaning that government does not inherently possess any means to create the wealth that will solve welfare problems.


A good example stands in Africa - private charities feed millions of people and protect them from disease and poor water. Those countries all have governments - so the idea that government is automatically superior to private charity is simply false.

Now, I could say that by your standards, the correct thing to do is pull all those charities our of Africa and leave their own governments to solve the problem. Ergo, you believe in starving people because of your commitment to a governmental model that has failed where private charity has succeeded.

I won't say that, because it would be irritating and somewhat stupid. It's silly to criticise a model of welfare by going straight to an over-simplified extreme and making rigid, catch-all statements about it.
 
Please quit with the exaggerated claims to 100% failure rate of private charity. I've already pointed out that government had a 100% failure rate by the same metric - it wasn't until recentlt that governments had the wealth to take on mass welfare programs. It got that wealth because of improving technology in production, meaning that government does not inherently possess any means to create the wealth that will solve welfare problems.


A good example stands in Africa - private charities feed millions of people and protect them from disease and poor water. Those countries all have governments - so the idea that government is automatically superior to private charity is simply false.

Now, I could say that by your standards, the correct thing to do is pull all those charities our of Africa and leave their own governments to solve the problem. Ergo, you believe in starving people because of your commitment to a governmental model that has failed where private charity has succeeded.

I won't say that, because it would be irritating and somewhat stupid. It's silly to criticise a model of welfare by going straight to an over-simplified extreme and making rigid, catch-all statements about it.



You still aren't looking at it right. Volunteer charity has never, that is, 0% of the time, been sufficient for the basic needs of all of the dependent population. It has never met the needs. That is a 100% failure rate. Government charity is something that has often not been done. It has often been a choice to not meet the needs. Volunteer charity cannot choose to meet the need. It is not within their power. Government charity in most cases can choose to meet the need, but often does not. Most of the time, even the poorer of nations could meet basic needs of charity, but chooses not to. The richer nations can easily do so. Though have only done so at all in recent times, and even then incompletely.

So on the one hand you have a system that can have a high success rate, but often chooses not to. But on the other hand you have a system that can never have a high success rate, no matter how hard they try.
 
This thread is in the top 1% of hilariously misinformed threads I've read on CFC. But it still isn't quite as bad as the all-time-winner, a thread by someone who appeared to be under the impression that women never poop unless something is medically wrong with them. He was in no way joking and seemed surprised that this was not the case.

So I'm afraid you narrowly missed being part of the OT Misinformation Hall of Fame, MisterCooper. Keep trying through, you're not too far away!
 
You still aren't looking at it right. Volunteer charity has never, that is, 0% of the time, been sufficient for the basic needs of all of the dependent population. It has never met the needs. That is a 100% failure rate. Government charity is something that has often not been done. It has often been a choice to not meet the needs. Volunteer charity cannot choose to meet the need. It is not within their power. Government charity in most cases can choose to meet the need, but often does not. Most of the time, even the poorer of nations could meet basic needs of charity, but chooses not to. The richer nations can easily do so. Though have only done so at all in recent times, and even then incompletely.

So on the one hand you have a system that can have a high success rate, but often chooses not to. But on the other hand you have a system that can never have a high success rate, no matter how hard they try.

You were previously arguing that to argue for private charity is to advocate starvation. Now, you've moved to some kind of "basic needs" argument and are attempting, in different ways, to argue in absolutes about why your chosen system is the only game in town and the private system fails 100%.

There is more than one standard to judge the success of a welfare/charity model. Your standard of "basic needs" seems to be set amazingly high, but that is not the reality of the work that needs to be done on the ground. But then I think you are more interested in over-simplifying for the purpose of making exaggerated claims than you are about understanding such a complex area.
 
Obviously Federal socialists are in the process of usurping this program, using socialist controlled media to prepare the public. Incremental creep.

The sheeple around here are incapable of thinking on the level necessary to see the insipid designs of evil. It falls therefore to me to sound the alarm.

Words are just toys to you, aren't they?
 
You were previously arguing that to argue for private charity is to advocate starvation. Now, you've moved to some kind of "basic needs" argument and are attempting, in different ways, to argue in absolutes about why your chosen system is the only game in town and the private system fails 100%.

There is more than one standard to judge the success of a welfare/charity model. Your standard of "basic needs" seems to be set amazingly high, but that is not the reality of the work that needs to be done on the ground. But then I think you are more interested in over-simplifying for the purpose of making exaggerated claims than you are about understanding such a complex area.


Actually, it is starvation. Many people will go hungry to the point of serious health effects. Many will even die. many will be permanently harmed by malnutrition. Many will have lifetime crippling harm from lack of food. That is the system that you are arguing for.
 
Actually, it is starvation. Many people will go hungry to the point of serious health effects. Many will even die. many will be permanently harmed by malnutrition. Many will have lifetime crippling harm from lack of food. That is the system that you are arguing for.

Okay I'll play the game on your simplistic terms if it makes you happy.

i) Cutlass says private charity fails 100% of the time
ii) We can therefore pull all the charities out of Africa, as they fail 100% anyway
iii) OMG millions are dead!!!
iv) Cutlass believes in mass murder!!!!

There you go. This is definitely the way to have an informed discussion.
 
Okay I'll play the game on your simplistic terms if it makes you happy.

i) Cutlass says private charity fails 100% of the time
ii) We can therefore pull all the charities out of Africa, as they fail 100% anyway
iii) OMG millions are dead!!!
iv) Cutlass believes in mass murder!!!!

There you go. This is definitely the way to have an informed discussion.



Strawman much? Just because some are helped does not change the fact that private charity can never keep all the needy alive.
 
Oh yay, apocalyptic conservatism.

*yawn*

Also, you're missing an "r" in your title.
 
Top Bottom