Is this a valid observation & critique?

[DrPepper12]

I can't WAIT to hear MAGA mental gymnastics!!

Invalid thesis. Charity is voluntary, taxes are not.

It's complicated...

[BCRanger10]

Nope. Not even close. Quite the opposite, in fact.

First of all, socialism is objectively Satanic. People will often say "Oh but BCR, you're a Christian! Don't you know that Jesus Christ was a socialist?" Yeah, bubby, I've heard that joke before. But please, by all means, we need as much laughter in this world today as possible. To such, I say go read the Gospels, read the words of Christ, and tell me just how much of a raging Marxist, socialist, wokester, whatever you think he REALLY is.

Socialism operates on a fundamental twisting at best of human nature. Some people are willing to make lots of money and get taxed at astronomical levels to alleviate poverty. Most though are not. If you remove the incentive to succeed, people will not only not succeed, but they won't even try, or at least not as much or as hard.

They'll say "tax the rich", but then they lament that rich people exploit loopholes in the law or the tax codes in order to avoid paying higher taxes, which then passes the burden to the, if you will, lower classes.

Then there's to consider that if you are entitled to something, that means that someone else is legally and morally obligated to provide it. And what does that do? It requires more personnel, training, equipment, and resources. And all of that costs money, so taxes will go up, as will spending. And when that happens, the quality will decrease.

And with that being said, the next question I'd ask is when has the government truly proved itself worthy of trust and shown itself to be competent and adequately motivated to fight poverty?

Lastly, from a Christian perspective, in Matthew 25, Jesus said "when you helped the least of these, you helped me and when you did not help the least of these, you did not help me." That means that the obligation to help is on us. We will not be welcomed into Eternity by handing our responsibility off to faceless agencies whose means, motivation, and competence to create a world without poverty are questionable at best.

So no, that critique is completely wrong and invalid.

[OneViewpoint]

It doesn't fascinate me. It pisses me off!

I can't help thinking it's the "others" thing again. Conservative brains need to feel superior. To someone. Anyone. They crave it. If they are doling out charity to someone else they are inherently superior to that person, right?

On the other hand if that other person doesn't need your charity, the Conservative brain has no one to look down on and that other person is now a threat.

Does it just come down to insecurity and getting off on feeling morally superior?

[AnonAndrew]

@OneViewpoint
To be fair, this opinion makes it sound like you need to feel superior to them. ;-)

[OneViewpoint]

@AnonAndrew ,

I do. On your knees filth.

[Caroline91]

I agree with the premise. But I don’t think a political system is the answer. It is a moral and spiritual issue, not a political one.

[DrPepper12]

But it CAN be acculturated / incentivized by govt policy, no?

[dustybiker2]

The skills of the bottom dwellers should not be underestimated.

[Lliam]

I think it's valid. There are countries that do a very good job of taking care of their citizens. But the international banking establishment, multinational corporations, and imperialist countries like the U. S. hate that and do what they can to subvert what they derogatorily refer to as socialism. They always point to places like the USSR and communist China as the evils of socialism.

The U. S. and many other countries embrace neoliberalism, socialism for corporations and the wealthy, and dog eat dog, market economy capitalism for working people and the poor.

[ProbablyClueless]

It's just reflective of a lack of understanding about the basics of social programs and sustainable generosity.

Legislated generosity programs and incredibly inefficient, sloppy and ineffective. People who don't have enough to give their money to a charity also don't have money to give to a government program. With the government program, they don't get a choice in the matter.

A private charity is better, at least in theory, because there is less machinery to chew up the money.

[WindAtMyBack]

One is voluntary. The other is forced. Why is that so complicated?

One is done by the government, which is totally inept and inefficient at everything it does. Granted, private sector charity is not all the efficient either, but they do a lot better than the government.

[FreyaRed]

You have to beg for the alms. People in power insist on their rituals when they steal your resources and than give sometimes a little bit back and promote themselves as philantropes. You have to be grateful.

[DonaldDarko]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xw_gxEL0Q_A

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Avicenna]

Leftists are control freaks- the idea that people might decide to donate money to charities not under corrupt leftist control and not pursuing the leftist agenda dictated to them by wealthy leftists is anathema to them.

But leftists will continue to lie to us that it’s possible to eliminate poverty if we just tax the wealthy more and have leftist bureaucrats decide what to do with it while simultaneously going on a hiring binge of leftists at all levels of government and letting in tens if not hundreds of millions of illegals. What they won’t tell you is they’ll raise everyone’s taxes and we’ll still have imported way more poverty even before you account for the other devastating results of leftist policies.

[Shiprex]

You know monarchies were situations where only the few could do charity and thus make themselves feel good while the huge majority of working people could only just get by. Must be because monarchs and royalty are better people eh? Especially when they're born into it and have to do nothing to retain it because the power they've inherited is arranged so it can't be passed around more.

[Avicenna]

Most of those with noblesse oblige today are leftists, and their agendas don’t include eliminating poverty.

Even if we didn’t have tens of millions of illegals, it would be impossible to eliminate poverty from government spending alone. Charities can and many do help ameliorate poverty.

What Pepper unsurprisingly ignores is the coercive power of government and the fact that government workers aren’t selfless saints.

[Shiprex]

Much of this is true but there is still a hoard of billionaires who have not earned their wealth due to the structures they have invented to keep the prosperity for those already prosperous flowing upward and not outward. The true oligarchs aren't left wing in the slightest. Hundreds of people getting richer doing NOTHING while teachers, soldiers, nurses, cleaners, etc. are working more jobs just to get by AND there are homeless people all over US with next to no opportunity to resolve the plight the rich have created. Take a look at Norway who have their WHOLE POPULATION as comparative millionaires, they used the profits from business to SERVE the population NOT the rich.

[DrPepper12]

Your paralyzing fear of others is palpable

[seeyounexttuesday]

No it is not. On the simple basis that charity is given willingly. "Creating a society" i. e. government handouts require force to ensure people comply.

If your world view requires the threat of violence to make people comply, it's a shitty world view.

[DrPepper12]

All govt policy comes with implied sanctions. It's part of the social contract & civilization

[seeyounexttuesday]

Lol, social contract.. So you’re fine with Trump clearing the homeless out of DC, right?

[Twalli]

That's why I'm a socialist. Level the playing field. People have to make it themselves. They way we do this is to not lower the level of the best places to the worst, though. We must raise the level of the worst to equal the bst.

[NaultD]

That honestly feeds into there own montra. If every is good this mentality should kick in like a jet engine.

...

It's not so an external problem is happening. Ie brown people.

[DJB72]

Show me any fully socialist society where there's no poverty.

Socialism seeks more control than any other form of government, and there are zero countries where it works.

The reason is simple

[Shiprex]

OHHH noooo it doesn't
It seeks to redistribute wealth from the few who've amassed more than they need and hoard it, to those who keep it in the economy.
Who do you think is more committed to keeping the economy going, the person who spends all their wages every month or the "investor" buying stocks and shares, allowing money to make more money without actually producing ANYTHING?

[DJB72]

If the economy fails again like it did a century ago, everybody loses. The difference is the people who have accumulated wealth buying stocks and shares are the ones whose money is directly linked to the success of the businesses employees work in. Equity or Sweat-Equity is the only difference.

[Shiprex]

Economy failing or not is impactful on the less well off because those who have the equity and prosperity have gotten it from the work of those less well off than them in the first place in order to be able to HAVE this "extra" so if society values people above prosperity, then there has to be a movement to redistribute that "extra" they got and put it in the hands of the ones who WILL commit 100% of their income to their community instead of seeking further "extra" they get from not earning it.

[DJB72]

Most people with financial accounts above the million mark hold that in intangibles - stocks, shares and crypto. That shit only has perceived value. It can be wiped out in a 1920s type crash in a matter of hours, while some guy with next to nothing on paper who can grow his own food, has his own water well point and can operate with minimal outlay might be considered "less well off" today, but he's the richest man in the world when the power goes off and the supermarket has no food.

But socialism seeks to force everyone to give up private property and let the government say who grows what and when. If you need a reference, look up North Korea and the USSR. See how well socialist society actually works.

[Shiprex]

The extreme example of the less well off "having it all" is a dystopian myth. The rest of society would shortly take what that "having it all" man had instantly.
What is it to have "property though? Ever wonder why and WHO says that property "belongs" to X and not Y? THE STATE and the POWERFUL or the ones who FORCE that mindset on to others.
The examples you give aren't socialist any more than the US is. They're dictatorships or plutocracies LIKE THE US is becoming. The myth of democracy is one thing Trump and his cabal are showing up as a lie. They can adjust and bend and corrupt things at will in order to retain power which is what the ruling elite do all the time

[DJB72]

The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy

[Shiprex]

It's more of a oligarchy thanks to the irrational and corrupted way it has allowed the democratic process to be twisted by the ruling classes and rich.

[DJB72]

These days you're right. I forget which president said America could only be destroyed by internal forces. I want to say Lincoln? He was right. At this point the bulk I see from outside is the Left doing everything they were accusing the Right of doing until January. Before that it looked like elements of the Right attacking the Left.

Either way, the USA is hardly a "united" country nowadays.

[Shiprex]

Yup, highly polarised

[Anonymous]

Because charity is voluntary and socialism is forced, and goes to causes they might disagree with or not believe in. You're forcing people who struggle to make $40,000 a year to give their tax money to homeless people and drug addicts and criminals and illegal immigrants.

[exitseven]

Th Salvation Army does not rob you at gunpoint.

[Dongie]

No it's an impossibility with the way people are. There are to many corrupt, crooked, greedy motherfuckers for there to be anything such as that. Why do you think socialism has always failed?

[onedarkcloud]

Assholes looking for a place to hang their hats and defend their ideologies

[Snakeyes7]

If you require charity, then it ceases to be charity.

[Anonymous]

I think you have an excellent point.

[Sal_Monella]

Of course it is.

[beefcakebradybatson]

VERY !!!