Charity and Voluntarism: Time to Walk the TalkSubmitted by N_G_J on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 18:19
Statist: There's not enough charity and aren't enough people willing to volunteer to make sure the less fortunate among us are taken care of adequately. That's why we're for a strong, socialist federal government.
Anti-Statist: There'd be more charity and voluntarism if the federal government didn't steal half our earnings through taxation and the destruction of the dollar's purchasing power (our savings) through inflation ... the hidden tax.
We all know the arguments and we all know which side Logic is on.
(Note: When arguing with a liberal, socialist, statist, etc. about charity versus taxation, one argument that I think could be very effective is this:
Liberals hate a lot of what the U.S. does with our tax money (Wars, corporate welfare, etc.), so just ask them: "Wouldn't you rather keep that money and give it directly to a family or families of your choosing to help them with education, food, utilities, etc. instead of funding the wars and other things you hate? Don't you realize that even if liberals who love high taxes were the only ones that would donate cash to poor people, which they wouldn't be, more money would actually get to these people because the politicians wouldn't be able steal a bunch of it for themselves and their friends, or waste a bunch of it on re-election "pork?" Wouldn't you like to take that ability away from the politicians and their owners?"
The Fed would need to come into the argument because the politicians could still get money from the Fed even without our tax dollars. But we all have myriad arguments against the Fed, so no need to paint that picture.
Anyway, I just never hear that argument and it seems like a good way into a liberal's heart.)
Sorry for that, it just occurred to me when I was about to start typing the main content of this topic and figured I'd put it out there. Now to the meat and potatoes.
We all believe in charity and voluntarism as the proper way to help the less fortunate. Not turning everyone into the less fortunate in order to help the less fortunate (ridiculous, as we all know), but when people think of us (Paulites, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc.) they don't think soup kitchens, they think greed, because we focus most of our energy talking about self-reliance, charity, and voluntarism than we actually do in regards to charity and voluntarism. Sure, we donate to political causes that will, in turn, help less fortunate people ... if we win.
I think we need to start practicing what we preach on a grand scale, which will give our arguments much more weight and that could help us win the hearts and minds of minorities in financial troubles and the so-called bleeding hearts. We need to make "libertarianism" and "liberty" synonymous with "charity" and "voluntarism."
I suggest we start right away. We can do "Food Bombs" and have simultaneous food drives for the poor at all of Dr. Paul's campaign rallies. One thing we can NOT do is only do this stuff at rallies because it'll look like we're only doing this to buy votes from poor people. In fact, now that I think about it, that may be a bad idea altogether, so scratch that one. heh But we can still do food drives, soup kitchens, money bombs for TRUSTWORTHY charitable organizations, and food and clothes bombs for homeless shelters.
If we're going to talk about charity and voluntarism, we have to get out there and show people how it's done and how it's an improvement, forget all the theories. Theories don't help hungry children.
Our ideas are the most logical, but they aren't the ideas our government is using, so the the less fortunate will continue to suffer until we prevail. Until then, WE need to help these people that our sworn enemies are destroying. Even if the very people we're trying to help run off and vote for another tyrant.
Hearts and minds one at a time, one day at a time.
Thanks for listening ... see you next time. heh