Sorry ...

[FindersKeepers]

William, considering your young age you are extremely bright. I agree with you as to the difference between government and charity when it comes to alleviating the pain of tragedy no matter how brought about. Why should a atheist need to attend a religious ceremony to get a meal and shelter such is the case with out Salvation Army? Government should serve all without regard to judgement.. .

I agree. True charity helps all.

That's the reason I walk past the Salvation Army bell-ringers during the holidays. They don't get one red cent from me. I don't like their bias nor their discriminatory practices.

[FindersKeepers]

I don't disagree that the current structure of these programs create dependency. That's absolutely correct and exactly why I've long been an advocate of reform.

Where we disagree is that these programs are bad because government. Take Hurricane Matthew for example. It'll cost an estimated $1.5 billion to repair the damage and that's just the initial estimate. The flooding in my wife's native Louisiana last month will cost over $20 billion in repairs and clean-up.

When these things happen regularly and cause quite a considerable amount of damage, it's great that individuals and smaller organuzations can step in and help but the ultimate price tag to clean up and repair cities is simply too much for any individual or small group to raise.

That's slightly different -- in my opinion -- because it's not personal charity but rather the rebuilding of infrastructure. Infrastructure is used by many citizens but it isn't really charity.

We agree on a lot, actually. The government isn't going to go in and rebuild individual houses for the homeowners. The charities will be there assisting, however.

The disasters we see around here are typically from tornadoes and fire. I feel an anecdote coming on...

One of the first disasters I worked with the Mennonites was the Greensburg tornado, here in KS. Damage was estimated around a quarter of a billion dollars. That's a lot for this little state. There was so much damage that the national guard was called out. The Red Cross was there, too, but that's the one I was speaking of where not only did we beat the Red Cross to the site, by the time they arrived, we had set up in two churches to house and feed the temporarily homeless. I've never seen so much destruction nor so many people in need of immediate help. The national guard was there to keep the looting down, but the actual assistance -- the heavy equipment needed for cleanup and the food -- came from Kansas citizens. The SAR teams were private.

That was about eight years ago -- and I was through Greensburg this past spring -- it's beautiful again. Private insurance paid for most of the home rebuilding, but there were a few homes that were not insured, and private charities helped them rebuild.

I'm not saying there's not a time when government should step in -- I'm just saying that in the vast majority of cases, their help should be limited to crowd and peace control and rebuilding infrastructure.

I don't see our positions as being all that different, actually.

[FindersKeepers]

I could see the government at the local level helping. They know the people of the community more intimately than some far off, disconnected, central planners.

You give example of settlers. Adam Smith, Wealth, describes how traditionally communities took responsibility for their own. If you wanted to move to a community, it took on great responsibility and so required you account for yourself and your ability to work and contribute and find someone in the community to vouch for you. Once accepted, if you fell on hard times, the community cared for you.

Yes.

Once you were back on your feet, you were expected to help the next person who fell on hard times. That, in itself, is how people were able to recover their standing in the community.

That reciprocal intent is denied to those on government social programs today, however.

[William]

I think we have a slight miscommunication here.

Maybe.

I certainly do not advocate "church" charities over any other type of private charity. Where I live, it just so happens that a great deal of the charities are run by religious organizations. They are non-denominational, however. The Mennonites I spoke of -- they help everyone but do not require any sort of "faith" commitment in return. And, they call me to help -- a known atheist -- and we work side by side. They are not, I'm sure, as large as Catholic Charities, the group that picks up hospital and medical bill for the uninsured, but Mennonite Aide is large enough to have its own banking network and they assist low-income home buyers with their mortgages.

I think maybe some of that miscommunication comes from the fact that I am talking about charity versus social services as it happens across the developed world, and you are talking about how things are in the USA. In Australia, Britain, Canada, and most of Europe, there is no such thing as hospital and medical bills for the uninsured. Taxation funded universal health care means everyone is covered, no matter how little or how much money they have. AFIK, charities are good things but they cannot take the place of government social programmes.

When I sold real estate about a decade ago, one of my home-buying clients was a single mother with two teenagers. Mennonite Aide picked up the tab for nearly one-third the purchase price of her new home, the only "catch" was that she had to live in it for five years, which she did.

That's mega-cool, but could such a charity provide low cost, or no cost, housing for widows and single mothers across the country - like the Australian government does?

Let me ask you a question -- if you were hungry, who would you feel more beholden to if they helped you out -- the state -- or your neighbor. I'm guessing you'd feel more beholden to your neighbor, and that's natural. You would probably feel as if the state "owed you" on some level. While you might make an effort to repay your neighbor -- you would not make an effort to repay the state, and that's the foundation "feeling" that is in question here.

That's why entire neighborhoods who live on the government dole find themselves emotionally trapped. There is no emotional reason to try and rise out of the situation.

I'm not saying that people should feel "shamed" by receiving charity -- I'm saying they should feel the need to either pay it back or pay-it-forward. That's the basis of human pride. Government charity strips away pride. Being able to "return a favor" gives a person back his/her pride.

The biggest problem with government charity is that it engenders a feeling of helplessness, which, as I said before, leads to more despondent and destructive feelings over time.

Well, for starters, there is no such thing as 'government charity', it is social services which all citizens are entitled to if they need it. Australia has a high level of social services, and is ranked 2nd in the world in the 2014 Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (the USA is ranked 28th,) http://www.zmescience.com/science/hu...ndex-31072014/ and I have seen no studies that show Australians on social services feel helpless, and have despondent and destructive feelings. So maybe it just depends on the society.

We have richer and poorer towns and villages, but we don't have whole neighbourhoods who live on the dole, and if I was hungry I would be grateful to whoever fed me. But pride would make me want to look after myself when that is possible, and not depend on either charity or the government. I think most human beings would think that way, and it's total cobblers that people choose to be poor and dependent.

You are correct that, in most regions, private charities are not sufficient to care for all those who need help. I'm not advocating that ONLY charities bear that load -- I'm advocating that private individuals step up. I'm advocating that all of us step up and help our neighbors, because that's what being a part of a community is all about.

That's where taxes come from, after all, individuals.

I totally agree - if you can, you should help people who need help, but doing away with government social services is not the answer. Improving government social services, funding them better, and weeding out those who abuse those services, will make society a better, happier, and less violent place. But there will always be dole cheats, we just have accept that, but it is not a reason to discontinue social services.

[Chris]

Yes.

Once you were back on your feet, you were expected to help the next person who fell on hard times. That, in itself, is how people were able to recover their standing in the community.

That reciprocal intent is denied to those on government social programs today, however.

Exactly. When the welfare comes from the community you know who the help came from, who you're indebted to, and you interact with that community and can't escape it, everyone knows, so if you're asked for help you can re-establish your standing and stake in the community. Most of us have experienced this.

When the money comes from the State, a check in the mail, you don't know who it came from and who to pay back or how other than with loyalty to the State.

Anecdotal? Sure, based on personal experience. Not relying on reason alone to derive imaginary solutions that address no problems.

[Green Arrow]

That's slightly different -- in my opinion -- because it's not personal charity but rather the rebuilding of infrastructure. Infrastructure is used by many citizens but it isn't really charity.

We agree on a lot, actually. The government isn't going to go in and rebuild individual houses for the homeowners. The charities will be there assisting, however.

The disasters we see around here are typically from tornadoes and fire. I feel an anecdote coming on...

One of the first disasters I worked with the Mennonites was the Greensburg tornado, here in KS. Damage was estimated around a quarter of a billion dollars. That's a lot for this little state. There was so much damage that the national guard was called out. The Red Cross was there, too, but that's the one I was speaking of where not only did we beat the Red Cross to the site, by the time they arrived, we had set up in two churches to house and feed the temporarily homeless. I've never seen so much destruction nor so many people in need of immediate help. The national guard was there to keep the looting down, but the actual assistance -- the heavy equipment needed for cleanup and the food -- came from Kansas citizens. The SAR teams were private.

That was about eight years ago -- and I was through Greensburg this past spring -- it's beautiful again. Private insurance paid for most of the home rebuilding, but there were a few homes that were not insured, and private charities helped them rebuild.

I'm not saying there's not a time when government should step in -- I'm just saying that in the vast majority of cases, their help should be limited to crowd and peace control and rebuilding infrastructure.

I don't see our positions as being all that different, actually.

Perhaps not. I don't disagree with what you've said here.

[Bo-4]

You're right William - our cycles are ridiculous. They're already talking about the GOP frontrunners for 2020.