[lit-ideas] Re: Ye Olde Dialectic
- From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
First of all, the way I parse the argument about
charity, it boils down to license to indifference. By
postulating some perfect world (or government) and
then pointing out that reality around us doesn't match
it, and therefore anything is futile or even
counterproductive, we have infinite supply of reasons
for not doing a thing. Compare: "What use is it to
feed this man if millions will go hungry."
Second, in reply to Phil Enns:
> However, Eric also wants
> government to try and do what charities do. Now,
> either charities cannot do what they intend and
> actually do, or Eric is introducing a new facet of
> government.
Sometimes charities can do what they intend to do and
sometimes they can't.
If the homeless guy on the street gets his lunch from
a government agency and supper from the Salvation
Army, what exactly is the problem? Yes, there is some
overlap, which may imply inefficency. And it may well
be the case that Salvation Army is more efficent in
this case, in which case funds should be directed to
SA. However this is an empirical finding, and simply
that charities exits does not imply that they are
effective or sufficent. Bottom line is that the guy
gets to eat.
Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: