Comments on: How Government Takes the Giving out of Giving

By: Drew Winters

Drew Winters — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I don't disagree with you, but allow me to play the Devil's advocate… I see two problems. First, someone has to distribute the money, food, etc. to the needy. I would prefer this to be a non-profit org. run by concerned and loving individuals, but ultimately the most important qualification for the job is that the distributor can be neutral and fair. I'm not sure we can, honestly, but if we can't trust our publicly-oversighted, elected government to be just, why should we trust anyone else to be just?Second, if we see supporting the needy as our civic or moral duty, then is it not precisely the job of the government to enforce such support?

By: Darren Stone

Darren Stone — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Answer…no

By: Brian Casey

Brian Casey — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0000

When you "enforce" giving, it ceases to be giving.

By: Audra Hoffman

Audra Hoffman — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0000

yeah, but it makes selfish people, like me, who don't care about others, give once in a while.

By: Drew Winters

Drew Winters — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0000

You are absolutely right, and if your concern is only for the emotional well-being of those giving, then forcing benevolence is counter-productive. But if your concern is only for the needy, then whether or not the (relatively wealthy) 'giver' is edified is irrelevant.Of course, it's hardly so simple is it? Monetary donation is not always the best way to help the needy, who gets to decide who is "wealthy" and who is not? Just because someone is wealthy does not mean that their emotional health doesn't matter – or that it doesn't affect the health of society ("Ask not for whom the bell tolls…") Etc. My point is simply that government helping people is not necessarily the opposite of "people helping people." There will always be agencies whose purpose it is to distribute the alms, because if everyone is spending all their time being benevolent, then no wealth is produced for anyone. Furthermore, without a neutral, impersonal (to a certain degree) entity, those people who have no one personally close or capable to them have no where to go for help.So there has to be some entity whose purpose it is to fairly distribute benevolence. So how do we assign specialists to the field (to maximum productivity – the very basis of civilization) without become personally detached from the needy?Furthermore, what do we do about the deadbeats who will not help? If it is not the government's duty to enforce *that* civic duty, why do we enforce military registration (draft) or traffic laws or jury duty or etc. etc.In other words, there are some very complicated questions that hide at the bottom of this problem. Again, I don't disagree with you, I just think there is more to consider here.

By: Jennifer Ramsey

Jennifer Ramsey — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0000

What depresses me about having to disagree with taking the government out of the equation is that I have met that person who would never give to another. I went on a few dates with him! But his statement of not even being willing to pay $50 for a wine tasting (that was a fundraiser for a non-profit) because he would never give to another ended that one really quickly. I asked what he would do if he didn't have to pay any taxes, and he said he would still never donate. It's people like him (because he can't be the only one out there) that make the government necessary to enforce "giving".

By: Brian Casey

Brian Casey — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Just so every one knows, I was not suggesting that my solution is viable in the state I described it in. I was just saying that if we cared enough there could be something done. Drew,It is not for the "emotional well-being" of the giver only, but also of the receiver and for societal "well-being" as well. When gratitude comes into the equation it can act as a motivator to rise above one's situation (obviously only if that is even possible for the person). Hopefully the receiver would respond by becoming someone who wouldn't need to receive anymore. They could become a giver.I realize I am scratching the surface here and I am by no means suggesting that I have answers. Just wanted to get my thoughts out there and get some reaction. I am glad that is happening.Jennifer,I don't think we can take the government out of the picture in the current state of things. There are too many people who would act just as the person you described would. There will always be those who will opt out of being part of society but that doesn't mean that we should give up. We can still take actions at a personal level that could eventually change the way things are. Change starts with the individual. If I change me then I am stepping in the right direction. Thanks everyone for the discussion. It keeps me on my toes.