Second, I have come across this particular argument from Christian conservatives (which, in the form of economic conservatives, is almost an oxymoron), who say things such as
I have no problem with charity as those are VOLUNTARY. Many times if people run into more serious problems some charities will step in. I do have a problem with government theft or forced charity which is NOT charity at all.
(Actual quote from a conservative on another talkboard.)
Or how about this one, from the
Platform of the Libertarian Party of New Jersey:
Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must learn to rely on supportive family, religious institution, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.
There are a couple of problems here. First, clearly, neither of these two (and I suspect Mr. Moseley as well) know why the government got into social welfare. It is because private charities, most of whom do yeoman work, were simply unable to serve everyone who needed help.
Any conservatives who are aware of this and still want to do away with government welfare programs are placing ideology ahead of the needs of real people. This is morally bankrupt.
Second, who cares if the giver to charity gets a warm and fuzzy feeling and the taxpayer does not? The welfare or charity recipients certainly don't. They need help, and don't care all that much about the feelings of those who ultimately give the money.
Mr. Moseley comes across as being just one more conservative who does not have a clue about socialism, if he thinks it has anything to do with government-funded social welfare programs. He probably wouldn't recognize an actual socialist if one were marching down the road, waving a red banner and singing "The Internationale". He makes me think of John Kenneth Galbraith's dictum that "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
= new reply since forum marked as read
