My good friend, D. Michael Martindale, stated that a troublesome mindset develops in people when "government is taking care of" our needs. We get to thinking that "we don't have to worry about helping others." I think there is some truth to this.
However, let me draw a few fine points upon our proclivity to nap as disaster rages about us when we think Captain America is the proxy for our charity.
First, charity offered among associates, or bestowed by strangers when there is an obvious need, is more likely to be timely, specifically tailored to the scope of the problem to be re-mediated, and is given to those who genuinely merit it. That is why families, churches, and other private organizations are so good at efficiently providing this type of charity.
Second, random charity that is given long after a compelling event, or offered by strangers to strangers (though serving an important purpose at times), is often untimely, haphazard, inadequate, or disproportionate to the actual need and is therefore inefficient and more likely to be given to many who are truly free loaders. This is why we like having (at least I do) charitable organizations through which to funnel our charity, so that they can access the need and deliver the assistance in a proportionate manner.
Third, many of the most needy do not belong to churches or other charitable organizations. Moreover, many who desire to provide basic charitable services are unaffiliated with charitable organizations or are suspicious of them.
Lastly, private charity sometimes breaks down when there are persistent, somewhat invisible, long-term, chronic problems. Unfortunately, government is often best to address such problems – not because it is more efficient, but because it more easily operates in a manner that is comprehensive and does not differentiate due to color, creed, race, or political affiliation. It also, through legal constraints, must do so in a transparent manner. Therefore, it is better equipped to deal with many long-term issues like healthcare. For these reasons, many prefer such community-wide charity to be provided by government.
However, as Martindale states, too much government involvement destroys our initiative. Government programs should not displace private charitable efforts, but should only provide a minimal safety net that, when supplemented, the private sector creates the most humane, yet dynamic and productive society as possible.
Loren M. Lambert © September 25, 2012
However, let me draw a few fine points upon our proclivity to nap as disaster rages about us when we think Captain America is the proxy for our charity.
First, charity offered among associates, or bestowed by strangers when there is an obvious need, is more likely to be timely, specifically tailored to the scope of the problem to be re-mediated, and is given to those who genuinely merit it. That is why families, churches, and other private organizations are so good at efficiently providing this type of charity.
Second, random charity that is given long after a compelling event, or offered by strangers to strangers (though serving an important purpose at times), is often untimely, haphazard, inadequate, or disproportionate to the actual need and is therefore inefficient and more likely to be given to many who are truly free loaders. This is why we like having (at least I do) charitable organizations through which to funnel our charity, so that they can access the need and deliver the assistance in a proportionate manner.
Third, many of the most needy do not belong to churches or other charitable organizations. Moreover, many who desire to provide basic charitable services are unaffiliated with charitable organizations or are suspicious of them.
Lastly, private charity sometimes breaks down when there are persistent, somewhat invisible, long-term, chronic problems. Unfortunately, government is often best to address such problems – not because it is more efficient, but because it more easily operates in a manner that is comprehensive and does not differentiate due to color, creed, race, or political affiliation. It also, through legal constraints, must do so in a transparent manner. Therefore, it is better equipped to deal with many long-term issues like healthcare. For these reasons, many prefer such community-wide charity to be provided by government.
However, as Martindale states, too much government involvement destroys our initiative. Government programs should not displace private charitable efforts, but should only provide a minimal safety net that, when supplemented, the private sector creates the most humane, yet dynamic and productive society as possible.
Loren M. Lambert © September 25, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment