posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by KeliOnyx
It is one thing to simply be "charitable". It is another to know what is going on inside the charity. Anyone can just show up a couple days a week
and serve food, or sort and fold clothes or whatever. The thing is the more involved you actually get in whatever charity it is you are participating
in, it becomes abundantly clear that the charity system just can't simply keep up with the demands put on it. If you remove Government programs and
subsidies designed to help the poor you will not encourage more people to be charitable, you will put even more strain on the charity system.
It seems that you are saying that the administrators of organized state sponsored social welfare have associated overhead in personnel, equipment and
property. If they lose their state funding, they cannot perform their function.
Not only do I agree with you but I am saying that, in fact, the infrastructure that you are describing consumes the lion's share of any resources
that are allocated to it.
My current understanding is that the total expense of all social services, if distributed evenly among all citizens, would probably provide comparable
assistance to the current beneficiaries. That is, remove the entirety of the apparatus, fire everyone, sell everything and cut equal checks to
everyone and you get the same benefit to the people who actually qualified for assistance in the current model.
Not that I actually want this but, it is a disturbing analysis of the sheer scope of the waste that currently exists.
And all we ever hear about is how underfunded social services are.