So Inflation Is Killing Me - Video In Thread

[DC0]

You can be Democracy/Republic even if you are Authoritarian.

There is a huge difference between "be" and "call yourself". I believe every person understands this.
China is People's Republic of China. And yet they have only 1 party, censorship and missing or jailed political opponents.
Belarus is Republic of Belarus. Yet it's autocracy of Lukashenko.
Etc.

Oh, and Europe - free countries NOW? Try to criticize Muslims, or immigrants in Germany, UK, France, Sweden, etc.

 

[raxo2222]

There is a huge difference between "be" and "call yourself". I believe every person understands this.
China is People's Republic of China. And yet they have only 1 party, censorship and missing or jailed political opponents.
Belarus is Republic of Belarus. Yet it's autocracy of Lukashenko.
Etc.

Oh, and Europe - free countries NOW? Try to criticize Muslims, or immigrants in Germany, UK, France, Sweden, etc.

I know that, I meant real democracy/republic not by name.
China and Belarus aren't them of course.
But still their ideologies would be somewhere on political compass.
Two dimensional compass just have two axis: Left-Right and Liberty-Authority.
Here is democracy index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Dark/light green countries are democracies and republics, yellow are mixed and red are actual autocracies.
May be bit flawed though.

As for criticizing Muslims/immigrants it seems every political ideology would overreact on something.

 

[DC0]

If one wants to do charity, best possible way is to give straight to the one that is close and really in need.
The big players and facets that try to tempt you with pictures of large eyed hungry children in tv... don't fall for those. Always a scam.

That's why there is nothing better than religious institutions has been invented for charities yet.

Though there are private non-religious charities, who are legitimate. In Russia one is podari-zhizn.ru, I know for sure. I can't vouch for several others, but it doesn't mean they are not legitimate.

 

[Tajo]

That's why there is nothing better than religious institutions has been invented for charities yet.

Though there are private non-religious charities, who are legitimate. In Russia one is podari-zhizn.ru, I know for sure. I can't vouch for several others, but it doesn't mean they are not legitimate.

As mentioned, there has always been a better one. you give straight to the one in need and not to the religious institution. Religious institution is a middleman.

 

[DC0]

you give straight to the one in need and not to the religious institution. Religious institution is a middleman.

I disagree. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

Charities don't just give away stuff.

That's exactly what government does: just gives grease to most squicky wheel. The grease is a wealth government has stolen from future generations of people. But it is not help for the needy. It's a bribe, made with stolen wealth.

Charities help people. By providing to needy opportunity to become productive and proud member of society. This is genuine help.

Government gives stolen money to junkie, who will sell freedom for another shot of drug.

Charity lends a helping hand to a person who fell for whatever reason. It's still persons choice: to grab a hand and get up, or lay and moan to beg for free stuff. Charities don't stand near such people and stop giving them stuff.

 

[Tajo]

I disagree.

Government, church or whatever 'charity' organisation is still a middleman that feeds from the sum/help that is meant for some other in need. Best charity still is to support and teach someone by yourself without any middlemen. Period.

 

[DC0]

Best charity still is to support and teach someone by yourself without any middlemen. Period.

Only if you yourself is a charity worker.

It takes a lot of time, effort, dedication and personal participation to help alcohol abuser (for example) get out of his damaging habit.

 

[Tajo]

Only if you yourself is a charity worker.

It takes a lot of time, effort, dedication and personal participation to help alcohol abuser (for example) get out of his damaging habit.

That is what I meant. Straight from one to another without middlemen.

 

[tmv]

That is what I meant. Straight from one to another without middlemen.

And how far is your reach that way? You already said "close" - well, it seems a lot of people are out of luck that way.

Paying middlemen is not waste. It means they can dedicate all of their time without having to earn a living with something else. And in some areas of the world there may be violent organizations actively denying help to those in need - how would that be handled with your proposal?