I believe that having less than somebody else does not entitle you to what the other guy has. I do believe that should the other guy CHOOSE to entitle you to his possessions, (i.e. charity) then that is legitimate.

I also believe that charity is most effective when it is done personally. What i mean by this is you should know the person or organization you are giving to very well, so you can make the right call on who deserves your charity. The question one should ask himself before giving his poseesions away should be this: Who will make the most of what you give them?Giving to a money vacuum, like a drug addict, will not improve things long term. Giving to a productive friend who has fallen on hard times is well worth the investment long term.

By the nature of charity is cannot be charity if that which is given as charity is not given voluntarily. When something is taken by force (i.e. involuntarily), such as through taxation (or Robin Hood and his Merrie Men), and even if it is given to a cause deemed by some to be charitable, it ceases to be so, and becomes instead an immoral act of force and thievery.

That's kinda the point of charity is it not ?

1 Corinthians 13:3

If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

I came.

I read.

I up voted.

;)

If it is not voluntary it is not charity.

Schools and social programs aren't charity, they are tools society uses to better itself overall. When you stop investing in people societies stagnate. Allowing individuals to choose whether or not they will participate in the society that has allowed them to get to a position where there are capable of investing in that society would set back the overall ingenuity, entrepreneurship, standard of living, and that society's wealth generations.

And those complaining about investing in society as a whole would too have less wealth as the society around them crumbles.

The idea that individuals somehow on their own give back more than they take away from society is ridiculous. Generations and generations have built what has allowed individuals today to build businesses, invent, make more money and be more comfortable. It took hundreds of years to get where we are at. You didn't do it on your own. It's not charity, it's what you owe the society that made it possible for you to thrive.

The shortsightedness and greed of these people who mistakenly think they've given more than they get is shameful. Civics classes obviously has failed much of this generation.

Voluntary work = charity

Forced work = slavery

Doesn't matter what the cause is.

I think the only reason you wouldn't want to be forced into sharing your toys is that you don't want to. That makes you a detriment to society and a cause of unhappiness. Also, we have already seen the effects of having no public services. I'll give you a clue, it was shit for everyone apart from the very few at the top. Ever heard of the Victorian age in Britain? When charities were only private, the rich people who were too selfish to share their wealth didn't have to, and that left literally a third of the population below the poverty line, i.e. unable to afford essentials and having to become slaves to the rich. In every situation involving rights, there are always two different rights from which we must pick the most important. For example, there is the right to kill, and there is the right to not be murdered. Usually, we pick the right to not get murdered over the right to kill. In this situation, there is the right to not pay for someone else's welfare, and the right to a life. I believe the right of all humans to a life regardless of poor social standing takes priority over the right to not be forced into charity. But I'm just a stupid librul who cares about other people's feelings, so what do I know?

Charity begins in the home but it doesn't have to end there. Charity should be voluntary but sometimes the Government has to step in.