4 ms·

I don't honestly know the proper role for government in charity. I reject it rhetorically to illustrate that rejection of government charity is not rejection o

by Dove 17y ago

I don't honestly know the proper role for government in charity. I reject it rhetorically to illustrate that rejection of government charity is not rejection of charity overall, but I do not know if the extreme case is practical. You do seem to be right that it is not practiced. I had thought I would find counterexamples in places like the Antebellum south, or ancient Rome, and while I found a reduced emphasis on the state, I did not find it completely gone. And while my off the cuff memory is that there are places in the world, even today, where the obligation for children to care for their parents in old age is so complete that people have children for that very purpose, I don't have a citation for it. And I really don't have the experience to know whether it's preferable. On a personal level, I see very vividly the evils of institution and bureaucracy: the people it misses, the way it mistreats even the people it helps. I have helped homeless friends with transitions from shelter to shelter, even opened my home to them when it was appropriate; I don't think highly of the treatment they get, well out of the public eye. And I'm pretty sure if the city hadn't been there as an option, I'd have done more, and they'd have been better off. Is it good the city was there? I guess. But I hate the false dilemma that says it is the only way, and my instinct is that family, friends, and community are far better. I do not know what the correct role is for the state, but I cannot but hate anything that weakens the responsibility of a man to care for himself, or that seeks to replace the hospitality that family, friends and neighbors owe to each other.

MartinCron 17y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. A lot of people don't seem to like to look to other countries as examples of how individuals, societies, and governments can interact. Either as examples or as counter-examples. NPR's excellent Planet Money podcast did a few shows on Denmark, which is like an economic bizarro-world. Employment law is such that it's really easy to fire people, but they have a very strong social safety net (2 years unemployment, or something like that) so the workforce is very fluid. Employers aren't as afraid to hire people (as they are in countries with strong labor laws like France) because they don't have the same fear of legal or interpersonal repercussions. Firing in Denmark is no big deal. Taxes are progressive, crazy high, support fully subsidized health care, and the people there are the happiest in the world. Note: I'm not trying to say every country should be just like Denmark, but just that the way we've always done things isn't the only way that can work. On the other hand, you see people who complain about how "government can't do anything right" and "all regulation is bad" yet they don't realize the only reason that their houses survive earthquakes without killing them is that their houses comply with government designed and enforced building codes. There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades. It's easy to paint limited government as a moral ideal, and it's easy to find prominent examples of government failures. I personally hate bureaucracy as much as anyone else. The fact remains that a lot of people (often quietly) get meaningful help from our overall society via democratically elected governments.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  This has been a really interesting back and forth, just a quick point: > There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades. That's actually false. Haiti ranks as the 141st economically free country in the world out of around 200, and 24th out of 29 in the Caribbean. Government spending is around 20% of GDP, the income tax rates are comparable to the USA, but the property tax rate is sky high - up to as much as 15%. So no, Haiti hasn't had "limited government" the way Singapore or Hong Kong has limited government. They've got quite a bit of government going on, it just happens to both inept and corrupt.
  - MartinCron 17y ago
    Good point. I was thinking of limited in terms of what the government does for people, but I see that it was a terrible example. I still like building codes, though :)
    - Dove 17y ago
      The earthquake in Haiti was so destructive, in general, because Haiti has been a land under the heel of grinding poverty for many years. It was the poorest country in the western hemisphere, a place where children were sold into slavery to make ends meet, where eating dirt to avoid hunger pains was a practical enough approach to spawn an industry. And then natural disaster hit. Building codes have got nothing to do with it. My sister went there a few weeks ago. I've seen pictures. Some of those houses look to me like they'd fall over in a stiff rainstorm. [Edit: The hospital my sister helped build is the subject of the video featured on this page: http://heartlineministries.org/EarthquakeNeeds.aspx http://heartlineministries.org/EarthquakeNeeds.aspx . If you haven't seen Haiti, it's worth looking at the community they served and the problems they solved.]

by Dove 17y ago

MartinCron 17y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response. A lot of people don't seem to like to look to other countries as examples of how individuals, societies, and governments can interact. Either as examples or as counter-examples. NPR's excellent Planet Money podcast did a few shows on Denmark, which is like an economic bizarro-world. Employment law is such that it's really easy to fire people, but they have a very strong social safety net (2 years unemployment, or something like that) so the workforce is very fluid. Employers aren't as afraid to hire people (as they are in countries with strong labor laws like France) because they don't have the same fear of legal or interpersonal repercussions. Firing in Denmark is no big deal. Taxes are progressive, crazy high, support fully subsidized health care, and the people there are the happiest in the world. Note: I'm not trying to say every country should be just like Denmark, but just that the way we've always done things isn't the only way that can work. On the other hand, you see people who complain about how "government can't do anything right" and "all regulation is bad" yet they don't realize the only reason that their houses survive earthquakes without killing them is that their houses comply with government designed and enforced building codes. There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades. It's easy to paint limited government as a moral ideal, and it's easy to find prominent examples of government failures. I personally hate bureaucracy as much as anyone else. The fact remains that a lot of people (often quietly) get meaningful help from our overall society via democratically elected governments.

lionhearted 17y ago
This has been a really interesting back and forth, just a quick point: > There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades. That's actually false. Haiti ranks as the 141st economically free country in the world out of around 200, and 24th out of 29 in the Caribbean. Government spending is around 20% of GDP, the income tax rates are comparable to the USA, but the property tax rate is sky high - up to as much as 15%. So no, Haiti hasn't had "limited government" the way Singapore or Hong Kong has limited government. They've got quite a bit of government going on, it just happens to both inept and corrupt.
- MartinCron 17y ago
  Good point. I was thinking of limited in terms of what the government does for people, but I see that it was a terrible example. I still like building codes, though :)
  - Dove 17y ago
    The earthquake in Haiti was so destructive, in general, because Haiti has been a land under the heel of grinding poverty for many years. It was the poorest country in the western hemisphere, a place where children were sold into slavery to make ends meet, where eating dirt to avoid hunger pains was a practical enough approach to spawn an industry. And then natural disaster hit. Building codes have got nothing to do with it. My sister went there a few weeks ago. I've seen pictures. Some of those houses look to me like they'd fall over in a stiff rainstorm. [Edit: The hospital my sister helped build is the subject of the video featured on this page: http://heartlineministries.org/EarthquakeNeeds.aspx http://heartlineministries.org/EarthquakeNeeds.aspx . If you haven't seen Haiti, it's worth looking at the community they served and the problems they solved.]