> Are you one of these folk that believes your contributions should only be spent on amenities for you to avail of, personally? I don't think I've ever met an

> Are you one of these folk that believes your contributions should only be spent on amenities for you to avail of, personally? I don't think I've ever met anyone personally that believes this, or even have encountered this position online throughout my entire life. Is this a freshly constructed straw man, or do you have a link to someone with actual influence who legitimately holds this idea? > God forbid any cent of what you "earn" should ever have any communal benefit for any of the other beings you share the planet with. I pay 10% of my pre-tax income voluntarily to my church, which uses some of its donations to help others with food, clothing, shelter, job/career training, and education. Some of it gets used to provide assistance across the planet. I have no issue with spending my money or my time for the benefit of others. You people really need to learn some humility. You're not the virtuous saint you might think you are, and the people who disagree with you are not the selfish, callous monsters you might make them out to be. It is interesting to note, for instance, that conservatives on average are far more likely to donate to charity than progressives, and far more likely to give service out of their own time: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-giving-than-liberals/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-... There are many differences between private and public charity: * One is done by compulsion and force of arms, the other voluntarily. * One is subject to marketplace forces and competition, while the other holds an unbreakable monopoly (unless you count moving out of the country, I guess?). * If a private organization does a bad job, it tends to die out. If a government organization does a bad job, it convinces us to double its budget and try harder. * private organizations tend to be far more efficient and innovative: https://digitalcommons.bridgewater.edu/honors_projects/140 https://digitalcommons.bridgewater.edu/honors_projects/140. The incentive structure in government bureaucracy could be described as antithetical to both! * If a private organization runs out of money, it can't print more money or go into as much debt as it likes, putting a cap on the level of irresponsibility it can engage in. * If a private organization fails, then the consequences are small. When governments fail under massive debt, inflation, price controls, and other poor decisions, everyone in the country suffers catastrophically. * Government charity provides the opportunity for one group to vote to take away the money of another group. The relationship between votes and government handouts is so dangerous to a functioning society and yet gets entirely ignored. There are so many pathologies to government wealth redistribution. On the whole, tremendous harm has been done and continues to be done through it. It's time to wake up and see that the other side not only doesn't have bad ethics, but, in fact, may hold a lot of wisdom that is so badly needed and sorely lacking in society today. Compassion is great, but compassionate foolishness ends up being about as disastrous as it sounds.