The Empty Compassion of the Welfare State

I believe compassion towards our fellow creatures is sacred. We could use a great deal more of it. But if that compassion doesn’t move one to kindness, goodwill or charity, but only to increased demand for state powers, that compassion reveals itself to be empty.

This is why I remain unconvinced of welfare advocacy or state intervention into our affairs: because instead of taking up the responsibility of helping others and leading by example, advocates demand that the government do it for them.

This is especially true of market interventionists and wealth redistributionists. They are unable or unwilling to do what they demand of others. They refuse to provide healthcare, to redistribute their own wealth, to pay good wages, to provide housing, and so on, so they would much rather coerce others to do so.

But the bureaucratization and centralization of our goodwill and charity, and the delegation of our communal responsibilities to the State, poses a series of moral problems.

Though state welfare as a practical matter has filled the void where the charity of the Church once was, it offers myriad excuses for citizens to do nothing. Indeed, it makes life easier for the few who strive to help their fellow man in his time of need, but it also eases the burden for those who refuse to do the same. With each new facet of state welfare comes the erasure of our conscience and moral duty to one another.

Thus arises the new species of goodwill to replace the old one. The responsibility to our communities and to one another, therefor, is increasingly a problem of the State and not our own conscience. We employ those with no common bond to our communities to care for the individuals within it, leaving us without those important connections.

This diminishing of common humanity absolves ourselves of our own humanity. All we need do to retain a clean conscience going forward is to maintain our duties and allegiance to the state, not to one another. All that is required to be a good person is to advocate raising taxes, increased state powers, and to demand we hand over our wealth for redistribution.

Of course, as always, with the increase of the State and our dependency on it comes the decrease of our freedom and the responsibilities freedom requires. By the time we as a society realize this, the State will be too large to dismantle, and our consciences to empty to be bothered.

Protect us, feed us, heal us, oh State, because we can no longer do it ourselves.

Star and flag just for the truly accurate title.

Wow, that's a different aspect of it I hadn't even considered and even if I did, I most likely wouldn't have been able to word it nearly as well. I agree 100%, great topic!

a reply to: Tartuffe

As someone who has both worked and contributed to the charity of the church, it is insufficient to support all the cases requiring compassionate assistance.

If you are anything like the average American, if there were no support and you lost your job for a while. You'd starve, despite your savings, sale of assets, your community, your commitment to find work and your capability.

The welfare state knows where its wealth comes from. That is why a percentage of its taxes go to support those who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. It would run out of money if it didn't reinvest.

As much as I believe in free market capitalism, I live in Canada and we are pretty much socialist welfare state.

I want to be free to earn my own way and not be regulated and overtaxed. At the same time though, I dont give a damn if people want to sit at home and get free money. Its not for me but I dont want a bunch lazy criminals stealing from me and/or hurting my family so they dont have to work so I'd rather I paid a little extra in tax to keep them out of my way.

Cant kill them, cant even imprison them till they commit a crime so screw it... pay em.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Tartuffe

As someone who has both worked and contributed to the charity of the church, it is insufficient to support all the cases requiring compassionate assistance.

If you are anything like the average American, if there were no support and you lost your job for a while. You'd starve, despite your savings, sale of assets, your community, your commitment to find work and your capability.

The welfare state knows where its wealth comes from. That is why a percentage of its taxes go to support those who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. It would run out of money if it didn't reinvest.

My argument was that the welfare state allows society to forgo the responsibility of helping others, leaving its individuals bereft of compassion and duty towards their fellow man, and maybe worse, dependent on state power, a power which seeks to limit the freedoms of those it already reigns over.

The welfare state may know where it's wealth comes from (obviously, the people), but the people do not know where their wealth goes.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Tartuffe

As someone who has both worked and contributed to the charity of the church, it is insufficient to support all the cases requiring compassionate assistance.

If you are anything like the average American, if there were no support and you lost your job for a while. You'd starve, despite your savings, sale of assets, your community, your commitment to find work and your capability.

The welfare state knows where its wealth comes from. That is why a percentage of its taxes go to support those who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. It would run out of money if it didn't reinvest.

My argument was that the welfare state allows society to forgo the responsibility of helping others, leaving its individuals bereft of compassion and duty towards their fellow man, and maybe worse, dependent on state power, a power which seeks to limit the freedoms of those it already reigns over.

The welfare state may know where it's wealth comes from (obviously, the people), but the people do not know where their wealth goes.

People wouldn't help each other though, also those welfare payments are a cash injection back into the economy that is instantly used, many businesses and in turn the economy would fail without it, not to mention the government also buy loyalty with those regular payments.

a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.

The company most certainly is.

Do you?

I mean, after your income tax refund is more than 5% of your gross still going to the Feds?

If not, please start paying your fair share.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.

The company most certainly is.

Do you?

I mean, after your income tax refund is more than 5% of your gross still going to the Feds?

If not, please start paying your fair share.

Do you really think that corporations using offshore tax havens are paying their fair share?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.

The company most certainly is.

Do you?

I mean, after your income tax refund is more than 5% of your gross still going to the Feds?

If not, please start paying your fair share.

Where do I sign to get down to 5%?

It's been a while since I checked but there's no way I'm closer to 5 than I am to 30....

Every welfare case I've known spends their money on Amazon, Wal-Mart, and things I can't justify lie netflix and redbull.
I pay for their income and they're not even responsible with it. They don't care because they don't value it- because they don't earn it.

Money for nothing, and they hand it over to China via faceless corporations run by billionaires...

originally posted by: a325nt

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.

The company most certainly is.

Do you?

I mean, after your income tax refund is more than 5% of your gross still going to the Feds?

If not, please start paying your fair share.

Where do I sign to get down to 5%?

It's been a while since I checked but there's no way I'm closer to 5 than I am to 30....

Every welfare case I've known spends their money on Amazon, Wal-Mart, and things I can't justify lie netflix and redbull.
I pay for their income and they're not even responsible with it. They don't care because they don't value it- because they don't earn it.

Money for nothing, and they hand it over to China via faceless corporations run by billionaires...

I meant just Federal income tax for a lower middle class person.

I'm in your bracket as well and am so tired of someone making $28,000 a year with 3 kids, having SNAP and other programs at their disposal paying $2,000 a year in taxes and getting a $6,000 return with EIC saying that people need to pay their "fair share".

WTF?

Someone who is a net NEGATIVE as a taxpayer wanting everyone to pay their fair share?

How about you?

I'm SUBSIDIZING you, FFS.

Sorry... rant over.

But yes, I would LOVE it if everyone paid their "fair share."

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.

The company most certainly is.

Do you?

I mean, after your income tax refund is more than 5% of your gross still going to the Feds?

If not, please start paying your fair share.

Do you really that corporations using offshore tax havens are paying their fair share?

Ah yes... I had forgotten that to the left every major corporation has it's own island somewhere offshore with a big vault full of money sitting there so it can avoid paying taxes on it.

/facepalm.

Most bigger corporations use existing tax laws (put there by both sides of the aisle) to reduce their tax burden.

In the reality I live in, that's called using the available laws to save money.

The left calls that "Avoiding taxes" but in reality, you are just giving the government what they are asking you to give them.

So you can start crying about that once you stop using your standard or itemized deductions on your 1040.

You know, stop using a government subsidy and pay your fair share.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Tartuffe

As someone who has both worked and contributed to the charity of the church, it is insufficient to support all the cases requiring compassionate assistance.

If you are anything like the average American, if there were no support and you lost your job for a while. You'd starve, despite your savings, sale of assets, your community, your commitment to find work and your capability.

The welfare state knows where its wealth comes from. That is why a percentage of its taxes go to support those who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. It would run out of money if it didn't reinvest.

My argument was that the welfare state allows society to forgo the responsibility of helping others, leaving its individuals bereft of compassion and duty towards their fellow man, and maybe worse, dependent on state power, a power which seeks to limit the freedoms of those it already reigns over.

The welfare state may know where it's wealth comes from (obviously, the people), but the people do not know where their wealth goes.

People wouldn't help each other though, also those welfare payments are a cash injection back into the economy that is instantly used, many businesses and in turn the economy would fail without it, not to mention the government also buy loyalty with those regular payments.

You know what? You are totally right. Some people are jerks and won't help anyone else, but why is it your job to force them to help everyone else? Why is it your job to put a self-appointed ruling class in charge of determining what you, I, and everyone else owes to "help" the others? That's isn't charity. It's coercion. You want to cloak it in moral imperative, but there's nothing moral about coercion, even if you do it in the name of good.

I recall the story that supposedly Obama told about how he's in favor of sharing where two kids are at lunch. One has no sandwich and the other has a sandwich. He says it's the teacher's job to take the sandwich and pull it in half to each kid has some sandwich, and he calls that sharing. But it's not.

Sharing is where the teacher never gets involved. The kid with the sandwich just gives half his sandwich to the other kid.

And when called to do charity, that's what it is. It isn't voting for someone else to come into your pocket and everyone else's and take what you have leaving you no choice one way or the other. Nope. Charity is making the choice when you could do something else.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Tartuffe

As someone who has both worked and contributed to the charity of the church, it is insufficient to support all the cases requiring compassionate assistance.

If you are anything like the average American, if there were no support and you lost your job for a while. You'd starve, despite your savings, sale of assets, your community, your commitment to find work and your capability.

The welfare state knows where its wealth comes from. That is why a percentage of its taxes go to support those who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. It would run out of money if it didn't reinvest.

My argument was that the welfare state allows society to forgo the responsibility of helping others, leaving its individuals bereft of compassion and duty towards their fellow man, and maybe worse, dependent on state power, a power which seeks to limit the freedoms of those it already reigns over.

The welfare state may know where it's wealth comes from (obviously, the people), but the people do not know where their wealth goes.

People wouldn't help each other though, also those welfare payments are a cash injection back into the economy that is instantly used, many businesses and in turn the economy would fail without it, not to mention the government also buy loyalty with those regular payments.

Would you help others?

I watch the rebuilding of Raqqa and Mosul, both of which do not even have banks, let alone welfare, and they are helping each other rebuild.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.

There is an easy solution to that which does not require government force and coercion. Start a company and pays those workers livable wages.

That’s my question for those who demand the state intervene: why don’t you just do what you demand of others? All parties get what they want.

a reply to: Tartuffe

There was this old dude ... Gandhi something ... who said it best:

Be the change you want to see in the world.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Tartuffe

There was this old dude ... Gandhi something ... who said it best:

Be the change you want to see in the world.

I think the Ben Franklin quote applies as well.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

The point that people will not help others though is absolutely correct. I’ve seen bleeding hearts step over the homeless while talking about the benefits of welfare. There is something very ironic about that.

But the proposed solutions always set us back in chains.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Tartuffe

As someone who has both worked and contributed to the charity of the church, it is insufficient to support all the cases requiring compassionate assistance.

If you are anything like the average American, if there were no support and you lost your job for a while. You'd starve, despite your savings, sale of assets, your community, your commitment to find work and your capability.

The welfare state knows where its wealth comes from. That is why a percentage of its taxes go to support those who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. It would run out of money if it didn't reinvest.

My argument was that the welfare state allows society to forgo the responsibility of helping others, leaving its individuals bereft of compassion and duty towards their fellow man, and maybe worse, dependent on state power, a power which seeks to limit the freedoms of those it already reigns over.

The welfare state may know where it's wealth comes from (obviously, the people), but the people do not know where their wealth goes.

One might well argue that in spite of state support, the churches continue to work in charity.

One might also argue that it is the secularization of society that is leading to reduction in churchgoing population and is therefore the root of a less charitable society.

There are many positive moral directives being eroded by secularization. Perhaps the sum of us (the state) has a moral responsibility to our well being, in all possible circumstances?

I call it civic responsibility.

a reply to: chr0naut

I agree.

But I think we all have a civic responsibility, whether there is a state, a church, or nothing. I think such a morality, so long as it is well founded, could be advanced without the impositions of a state or church.

Personally I am more anarchist in my attitude towards the state. I believe that with a guiding principle of freedom, people will willingly adopt a form of civic responsibility, if not for the betterment of our situations, at the very least to retain the natural gift of liberty.