LogFAQs > #897428656

Mead posted...

@BADoglick
Look at the post friend. There is more than a single definition of the word. Only one specified that charity must be voluntary and the other specifically does not. If it fits either definition, it is factually charity.

An argument could also be made that democratically, the type of charity in question is maintained and organized by representatives chosen by voters. We go by majority in the US so if enough people wanted the programs to stop they could elect a candidate who is against them.

And really, Im not fond of taxes at all, but Id much rather accept the fact that there are a minority of scumbag moochers out there than deal with more people sleeping in the streets and higher crime rates, two things that will increase your taxes a hell of a lot more than low income benefits

1. Your argument that we vote for charity is inherently flawed, because the recipients of charity have an equal vote in regards to whether the 'charity' should continue. That fact means that those donating aren't always or even often volunteering to donate. Therefore it is not charity, but wealth distribution under threat of force.

2. Welfare doesn't prevent panhandling, if anything it encourages a culture of dependence and allows for those receiving said welfare to spend their time panhandling rather than working. Many 'homeless' people that you see actually do have homes. Far more than you evidently realize.
---

BADoglick to the Max!