Charity Begins at Home

Charity is a means of economic oppression because it maintains an ideology that is directly in opposition to socialism. Charity reinforces so many misconceptions about society: that social change relies on us being nice and feeling generous with what little disposable income we have; and that the disadvantaged should wag their tails with gratitude every time the wealthy toss them a bone labelled "charity".

Megan Miranda, "Where Charity Begins & Why it Should End"

I gleaned this quote from the organization website of The Socialist Party of Great Britain while I was researching some material for my previous post, Fading into Memory.  Ms. Miranda tries to make this view she puts forward seem like fact, when the one, of two, clear facts is that it is an opinion. I chuckle when I hear socialists talk about oppression. Pure socialism is about as oppressive to a healthy economy as you can get.  I suppose economists would balk at this statement while historians might support it.  When you read this one paragraph, and I invite you to use the link and read the entire article, I see government intrusion in every line; charity is in opposition to a form of government, social change should be at the government whim and not linked the people being nice and feeling generous, and it is better for the government to toss the bone of charity than the individuals that have some disposable income. Of course, under socialism, there will be very little disposable income unless you are a member of the socialist elite; so much for financial equality.

I have a feeling this post is heading somewhere, they usually do, I'm just not sure where this one is going.  Please bear with me. 

My humble opinion of M. Miranda's article is that it vomits the expected socialist drivel onto free thinking, robust, capitalist economies in another failed attempt to have us all goose stepping to the anthem of some future godless, government controlled, police state which, historically, will economically implode on itself given enough time. The second clear fact is that this paragraph is, as I stated, also an opinion and, like my father has always pointed out, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. 

"Effective philanthropy requires a lot of time and creativity - the same kind of focus and skills that building a business requires."

-- Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft

I think we should all be philanthropic, when we have something to give back. We should all want to give, and experience the warm feeling of giving. But, of what benefit is it, for those that have, to be forced by government to give of their good fortune? Forced charity is not charity at all, it is a tax. Taxes are not liked and, by extension, the cause of the tax will not be liked (for those not keeping up, that would be those in need of charity). Taxes lack the driving force of philanthropy that only an entrepreneur, a captain of industry, or Mother Theresa can provide; a force for good that is replaced by a yoke of government intrusion. Even the poorest can provide charity for another, until the pot is empty.  When that "individual" force is mandated (demanded) the flood of freely given charity turns to a trickle; libraries and monuments to mankind disappear under the weight of governmental "best of intentions." I think it is better to leave those that have and have not to their own devices, as many of them make superb role models for those young people that follow in their footsteps.

True philanthropy requires a disruptive mindset, innovative thinking and a philosophy driven by entrepreneurial insights and creative opportunities.

-- Naveen Jain, business executive, entrepreneur

Socialism has no use for charity, it is a charity. They feel that we should all just do for each other, a noble concept for one incapable of seeing further out than the end of their nose. One must try to remember, if everyone is in the cart, no one is pulling it. There must be wealthy or there will be no wealth, and without a mass of wealth there can be no mass of charity; we will only be able to give till it hurts, after it hurts long enough the pain will stop, and that is usually the sign that there is no more left to give. For all the good intentions, the system becomes financially bankrupt and there is just no money left. Sounding familiar? Hmmmm....

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it'."

-- Thomas Jefferson, American Founding Father, 3rd President of the United States

This is one reason why pure socialism and communism constantly fail. The idea of each is enticing, but the burden of reality teaches they are as bad or worse as the government they replaced and the people will soon realize the mistake when they're society starts to go south on them. In the end, socialism and communism just don't work.  They don't work because everyone becomes poor, no one can speak out for change, and everyone becomes without hope. I think, for a lively, robust society to continue to exist, there must also exist hope; the idea that, as individuals, we have an opportunity to strive for something better. Without this desire we simply trade one form of slavery for another; the masters simply change places with a few "chosen" slaves as managers who become as bad or, more likely, worse than the previous regime. Our legacy then becomes giant monuments to government instead of to the betterment of mankind. We simply fade into memory, like the crew of the boat in my previous post. Archeologists study great monuments of failed societies throughout history. The monuments still exist, while the people have turned to dust.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I think we should give because it is the right thing to do, the moral and the humane thing to do.  It is what Jesus would do, right?  The question, for most of us and our government, is really how to go about giving.  I think Jefferson and Gates have eyes solidly on target.  It isn't about redistributing wealth.  Throwing money at poverty produces no long term gains for society or the individual.  As the Sephardic Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, said in the 11th century, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

But, then, who are we to ever remember history, much less learn from it?



Editor's Note:  

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
  

Pastor Frank Anthony Villari

Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite.