Better than a welfare system

[Angst]

Plenty of American conservatives proclaim that charity is a preferable and/or better solution to poverty than institutional publicly funded welfare.

I believe that well-funded institutional solutions to poverty are better than solutions based upon the unpredictability of human nature.

This thread might be a strawman, because I'm going to counterargue some things that you necessarily don't agree with. If so, just list the things you don't agree with and say what you think yourself.

I find that such a system of deliberation is morally weighed and based upon moral values rather than pragmatic values. I think that the preference of charity is influenced by A) the Christian ideal of willingly/deliberately supporting the poor to be a good person, the act of supporting the poor becoming indeliberate or untrue when done through taxes, and B) the philosophical liberal ideal of choosing for yourself how to best spend your money, or being free, meaning that the only good support of the poor is the one that comes from a free man. (I'm using the proper original term of liberal here.)

I think that the ideal of charity as a solution to anything is flawed.

A) The Christian ideal
- Politics should not be defined by religion. What good you do in God's eyes has nothing to do with your state's allocation of resources.
- In Denmark, I pay my taxes and am proud of the support I'm providing the rest of my kin. Why do Christian moralists feel that my tax payment is worse than charity when I willingly pay my taxes for the benefit of the poor? Do they just not like paying taxes?
- If humans were willing and able to deliberately grant charity constantly, the mess of poverty wouldn't be a problem to begin with, especially in a country with as intense Christian values implemented in the population as America.

B) The liberal ideal
- The problem is basically that you give up prosperity for the sake of an idea, this "freedom of choice". The vague value of an abstract concept shouldn't cost the lives or well-being of people. I find that one has to draw a line between a philosopher's rationally created ideal and the concrete that we live in. I find my life more important than a propagandizing concept that's so idly defined. Basically, any amount of this "freedom" thing one might religiously preach of is worthless if I starve; it's also worthless if my neighbour starves. Because I don't care if it's sacred: one can't be free when he's dead.
- Also, doesn't the liberal ideal kind of eliminate itself as an actual solution? If one needs a solution for poverty, and another decides that the solution is "free will", it's still not solved. Free will is not a solution. Free will is something that might be or might not be, depending on the individual. A solution would hold some kind of safety in its organization: for example, the institution of public welfare, the arrangement of increasing salaries, etc.

I think that institutionalized public welfare is better, simply because it's a pragmatic arrangement that works. I think that the fact that it's much bigger expenses are far outweighed by the fact that it actually eliminates poverty rather than sitting back and saying "this might sort itself out, and I'm acting according to good morals."

What do you think?

 

[Save_Ferris]

If you want to ask conservatives a question, you've chosen the wrong site.

 

[AlpsStranger]

If you want to ask conservatives a question, you've chosen the wrong site.

I wasn't aware that conservatives didn't post here.

A certain subtype of Christian is actually fairly economically liberal. I've met a quite few of these. The economically conservative Christians, on the other hand, usually resent the idea that charity can't be accompanied by an opportunity to shame and proselytize the recipient. They also often wish to exclude sufficiently 'evil' charity cases altogether.

 

[kochman]

Plenty of American conservatives proclaim that charity is a preferable and/or better solution to poverty than institutional publicly funded welfare.

I think that it's a strange idea, myself...
The super rich seem to support that, versus taxes... and they pay charities, to get tax breaks...

There are tons of good things that churches do for the poor, for example... but it is good to have a national safety net system such as welfare, etc.

 

[kochman]

A certain subtype of Christian is actually fairly economically liberal. I've met a quite few of these.

GW Bush was one, and Huckabee was as governor.

 

[JohnRM]

Conservatives say that charity is a better alternative to welfare, but they know that it doesn't really work. They also don't happen to care whether or not it works. They don't need welfare and they don't care about those who do.

The fact is that conservatives are people who want to preserve the status quo. They want everything to stay the same, usually because the way things are is what works best for them.

Liberals are people who want to change things. They want to change things, because the ways things are isn't working for them.

It's a generalization, I know, but its generally true.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I wasn't aware that conservatives didn't post here.

We're so outnumbered that a lot of us don't post. I'd go to a site where there are a lot of far-right conservatives.

 

[kochman]

The fact is that conservatives are people who want to preserve the status quo. They want everything to stay the same, usually because the way things are is what works best for them.

Liberals are people who want to change things. They want to change things, because the ways things are isn't working for them.

It's a generalization, I know, but its generally true.

Exactly... Now, let me Godwyn for the early strike.
Hitler was clearly not into status quo... not conservative, as many posit. He wanted revolutionary change (in a terrible way). Reactionary symbolism, to be sure, but the ideas were... well, really, a whole separate ideology that isn't easily classified.

 

[JohnRM]

Exactly... Now, let me Godwyn for the early strike.
Hitler was clearly not into status quo... not conservative, as many posit. He wanted revolutionary change (in a terrible way). Reactionary symbolism, to be sure, but the ideas were... well, really, a whole separate ideology that isn't easily classified.

If you're trying to be sarcastic, you've failed.

Hitler's was a planned economy that was, for all intents and purposes, owned by the state. He also created a massive social welfare state. He also just happened to be a racist pig who murdered millions of people. But, if that one qualification makes him a conservative, then I guess I'm wrong.

 

[kochman]

If you're trying to be sarcastic, you've failed.

Hitler's was a planned economy that was, for all intents and purposes, owned by the state. He also created a massive social welfare state. He also just happened to be a racist pig who murdered millions of people. But, if that one qualification makes him a conservative, then I guess I'm wrong.

You mentioned 3 things, and said that one qualification... can you clarify which you mean?

He wanted sweeping social change... as did Mao... both not conservative.

Conservatives at the time would have been upholding the religion of the country, not attacking it... for example.

As I said, in a class of his own... a completely insane class.

 

[Ajidica]

However, during the early years Hitler's domestic policies were pretty much styled after Bismark, but then after the Night of the Long Knives Hitler completely purged left-Nazis such as Rohm and began attacking the Socialists and the Communists while firmly allying himself with the established business intrests and leftover nobility in Germany.

 

[kochman]

However, during the early years Hitler's domestic policies were pretty much styled after Bismark, but then after the Night of the Long Knives Hitler completely purged left-Nazis such as Rohm and began attacking the Socialists and the Communists while firmly allying himself with the established business intrests and leftover nobility in Germany.

Well, Rohm helped him the entire time he was attacking communists and socialists... so, what do you mean?

He also despised the nobility, and only used them for what they could give him... rather than just taking (which is odd, since he just took from everyone else). The nobility also despised him... See Count Von Stauffenberg for further details... or almost the entire Prussian nobility for that matter.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, Rohm helped him the entire time he was attacking communists and socialists... so, what do you mean?

The left in Europe was notoriously fractured at this time so it is no surprise they were fighting amongst themselves. The Communist Party was actually under orders from Moscow to oppose the Socialists.

He also despised the nobility, and only used them for what they could give him... rather than just taking (which is odd, since he just took from everyone else). The nobility also despised him... See Count Von Stauffenberg for further details... or almost the entire Prussian nobility for that matter.

He may have dispised them, but he was still aligning himself with their intrests. He already had the relatively conservative Protestant Middle Class supporting him.

 

[kochman]

The left in Europe was notoriously fractured at this time so it is no surprise they were fighting amongst themselves. The Communist Party was actually under orders from Moscow to oppose the Socialists.

He may have dispised them, but he was still aligning himself with their intrests. He already had the relatively conservative Protestant Middle Class supporting him.

It puzzles me why he didn't just crack the whip on them too... And redistribute their wealth as he did the Jewish wealth. He wasn't into Protestantism, he was not Protestant... brought up catholic, but clearly not religious.
Were they too large a bloc?

The Catholic crowd was big in "Gross Deutschland", and he assailed them to some extent...

Goebbels said:

"The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yet thousands of pointless threads argue about whether he was a Christian or an atheist.

I would say that Hitler was unique. Tragically unique to be sure, but certainly not simply label X or label Y.

EDIT: He may well not have believed in an Abrahamic God. I don't think he has anything in common with a modern American atheist though.

 

[kochman]

EDIT: He may well not have believed in an Abrahamic God. I don't think he has anything in common with a modern American atheist though.

Pretty sure he thought he was a gift from "God"...

 

[Ajidica]

Apparently so do you, given how you view the Holocaust as fulfilling a biblical prophecy.

 

[kochman]

Apparently so do you, given how you view the Holocaust as fulfilling a biblical prophecy.

That's blatantly ridiculous.
I said, God is the judge. Try to understand the difference.
I shouldn't even have dignified such a slur with a response, I just hate being completely misrepresented like that. Nice trolling.

 

[Ajidica]

So you are reversing your previous claim the Bible predicting the Holocaust?

 

[kochman]

So you are reversing your previous claim the Bible predicting the Holocaust?

No. I didn't reverse it at all.
I clearly don't rejoice it in. I'm proudly pro-Israel and part Jewish. I don't rejoice in the plagues of Egypt, if they happened either.