3 ms·
> Notably, it’s not like less religious places have devised secular replacements for religious charity Other places in the US, you mean. They have done this el
by StavrosK 7y ago
> Notably, it’s not like less religious places have devised secular replacements for religious charity
Other places in the US, you mean. They have done this elsewhere, they call it socialism.
- malandrew 7y agosocialism is not charity. If person A takes from person B by coercion to give to person C because person D voted for it. Neither person A nor person B nor person D can claim to be engaging in charity. Charity is voluntary giving.
- StavrosK 7y agoThat's true, it's better than charity because it doesn't rely on people's goodwill to ensure the survival of the less fortunate.
- ameister14 7y agoSure it does. That goodwill is simply transferred through the government. If it didn't exist, the people would follow a different model.
- StavrosK 7y agoIt's very easy to see whether this is true, just look at non-socialist countries and whether their social safety net is as strong as socialist ones. I think you'll notice that, on average, it's nowhere near.
- ameister14 7y agoThat's not really what I was saying. If the will of the people doesn't support giving resources to all the people (goodwill) Socialism is not possible. That said, a better example is that 'socialist' countries seem to give less to charity for those abroad. The biggest donating countries per capita are Myanmar, the USA and Australia, the most likely to help strangers appear to be Iraq, Libya and Kuwait. Even in Europe, it's topped by the UK which, while it is in possession of a social safety net, I would not call Socialist.