Is charity better than welfare?

Is charity better than welfare?

Attached: PC3D9oRcuhpmfBncWls3pFnkQEIWdGbhVDfn6USgRaY.jpg (506x474, 32K)

The problem with charity is that there's no rational redistribution, ie there's no way to make sure the moneys go to the people who need it to the extent they need it. Also charitable contributions are not predictable. If you want to redistribute income in a rational way, charity should be discouraged or banned.

"Making sure" is a hell of a drug, but there's a clear advantage between direct, localized action and sluggish, bureaucratic centralized action.

"Make sure" is just the convenient phrase. You know what is meant: create some rational relation between input of redistributed moneys and the output.
There is no reason why government bureaus cannot be direct and localized. Yes, any rational action will require more time and transaction costs than some bumfuck church handing out whatever it got to whoever comes to ask for it, but the benefit is that there's some point to charitable actions. Also local charities are hardly free of government control. If you want to claim tax breaks, and offer tax breaks to contributors, you have to follow some regulations.

You need taxes to make a modern state function. You need a state to have somewhere that is worth living for a large group of people.
It's a necessary evil.

>You need taxes to make a modern state function.

>You need a state to have somewhere that is worth living for a large group of people.

Attached: 1508443941950.png (645x729, 50K)

not him but could you tell what is your point of view on this?

Is that a picture of you user?

Why don’t ancaps call it extortion? That’s a way more accurate term. Oh right it’s because they’re dumb

If you think charity is better than welfare you're probably making a bad faith argument because you wouldn't be donating to charity in the first place.

Attached: ancap.jpg (2048x1239, 612K)

A minimal state can finance itself on fines, voluntary donations and state industries.

It is perfectly possible for a moral population to create a liveable stateless society, e.g. Commonwealth Iceland.

no no, dont you get it user, since Bill Gates and uh... that one other billionaire... donated large sums of money to fighting malaria, this means we literally have no need for a targeted social policies that deal with very specific problems that can't be solved with bake sales alone!

I thought one the main arguments libertarians used AGAINST social policies was that "these policies only work in small homogenous societies?"

Bitch please I give to charity despite knowing it and welfare are supremely ineffective

yes

Morally, yes
Practically, no

So, fight bureaucracy.

If both charity and welfare are ineffective, what's your solution to poverty (and the social problems that it causes?)

They're both shit. Neither of them actually help anyone, because they do not inspire anyone to better themselves. They exist to comfort the lazy and the vain only.

Every civilization needs redistribution. Even societies from Antiquity or Medieval times had one of some sort.

Read Soul of Man under [spoiler] Socialism [/spoiler]

Attached: 4343b1e55d57f9f2a5f548b9ae6458066ccddcdb292976329bf00cccac9e4759.jpg (300x493, 60K)

Yes. Charity to family, then friends, then people of same religion then everyone else.

Property is theft in the first place tho

>This post

Attached: 3cea9f54069a2699db6450145e5239c8.jpg (600x600, 67K)

???? If I build a house how is that stealing from others?

>Something something bourgeois, something something equality, something something communism.

Striner please

Attached: 1480378494074.jpg (504x720, 61K)

Welfare-from-taxation is compulsory, so it transfers wealth from both the greedy and the generous. Charity is still allowed but is usually deductible for tax-purposes and it still goes after progressive taxation does something to make for a more level field.

Charity is done voluntarily, so the greedy are left to concentrate more wealth than the generous.

A market economy where the only safety nets are privately-run charities means you get less philantropists at the top and more scrooges.

You stole the land you built it on from the community.

Property isn't theft, your notion that ownership is a concrete concept is a fuckin' spook though.

> Neither of them actually help anyone
Welfare literally destroyed absolute poverty in Western Europe. State aid is the reason we don't have slums anymore.

"Charity is better than welfare" is an argument used by those who intend not to give anything to charity anyway and let "freeloading" cancer patients die of neglect.

To claim something as your property is to steal it from everyone else.

>ownership is a concrete concept
Oh please don't pretend you know me.

Attached: 1484153277769.png (384x384, 10K)

>iceland is now a stateless commune
when will you ((people)) stop mislabeling nordic governmental systems

What right does everyone have to everything?

Exactly!

filantropism>charity>welfare

like dude, the trees, the wind and the air, like, belongs to everybody, just chill out

no u

Well said.