Wasn’t this thread originally about US American pharisees thumping their chests over being “the most generous people in the world”? :dubious:
Only if you think that CAFAmerica, Gallup or the British-based Charities Aid Foundation are “US American pharisees”.
Please stop being disingenuous.
You know perfectly well that any decision that society democratically makes is perfectly valid unless it breaks international - again, representatively democratically agreed - law. Your continued desperation to score tiny points is undignified. Trust me, your ego will survive if you don’t win every Internet argument.
What does “perfectly valid” have to do with anything? It’s not “scoring points”. It is pointing out that, at least in my opinion, forced charity is far ethically inferior, and less praiseworthy, than voluntary charity. And pretending that tax-based charity isn’t forced is the part that is “disingenuous”.
It was. Someone decided it was more important he was right about the definition of the word “forced” than any discussion anyone else wanted to have.
It’s disingenuous because you are deliberately (I assume deliberation rather than ignorance) ignoring the fact that it is a democratic decision; and therefore not “less ethical” than your country’s different democratic decision. It’s what we want.
It’s literally no more than “our choice of way of life is superior to yours”. And it’s not appropriate.
You’ve now gone so far as to say welfare is “ethically inferior”.
I fully acknowledged it was a democratic decision. It is still “less ethical” than voluntary charity. You for some reason equate democracy with ethics. Where are you getting that from?
Ethically inferior to charity. Yes. Because government welfare relies on force to extract the funds to distribute to the “needy” while charity doesn’t.
I wonder if the poorest people in America, who have no healthcare, no job options that pay above the minimum wage, or no job at all, no access to social support if, say they are struggling to take care of an elderly relative, no means of bettering there position, feel ‘free’ because noone in their country is ‘forced’ to provide for them?
When you’re hungry, ethics become a secondary consideration. But that doesn’t mean ethics don’t exist.
I would say refusing to take care of your poor is highly inethical
First - no it’s not. The means of chosen distribution is ethically neutral.
Second - I didn’t mention ethics in connection to democracy. You said, and I quote, that it was “ethically inferior”. You equated the two, not me, and your attempt to portray me as doing so is even more disingenuous.
This is exasperated by your continued wilful (again, I credit you with deliberation not ignorance) ignorance of the fact that the words you choose have weight. If you can choose between two words, and you opt for “forced”, an English word utterly loaded with negative connotations, you are choosing to play an emotive card. Denying this is what I mean by disingenuous; and hiding that motive behind “it’s factual” - when a number of other words you could have used are equally factual but don’t carry those negative connotations - is a disingenuous debating tactic.
It’s clever, I’ll give you that. It would probably work if you weren’t in an environment where rigouroussness was encouraged.
When you pay insurance, you pay even if you don’t have to claim. So your money is distributed, by the choice of the insurance company itself [not you] to whoever needs it at the time. You elected to pay insurance, like we elected democratically a government that does the same. It’s identical in every way except this: if a government uses the money in a way we disagree with, they lose their power. They get kicked out in the election. If an insurance company uses the ‘tax’ you pay to them for nefarious means: eg to line their own pockets, there’s really very little you can do about it.
In addition, our ‘insurance’ paid to the government protects the poorest people in the country as well as the rich. Your ‘tax’ to your almost [and I put aside the recourse to an ombudsman for a moment, and the politicians who are in their pockets] unaccountable insurance ‘taxman’, only ever covers those wealthy enough to afford to pay fees.
Then I suggest you give generously.
I do.
No it isn’t. Taking money by force from someone to give to someone else is not “ethically neutral”.
You’re assigning something to me I didn’t say. I never “equated the two”. You did. To wit:
“it is a democratic decision; and therefore not “less ethical””.
Facts sometimes have “negative connotations”. That’s no reason to avoid them.
Good for you. Giving your own money to the needy is more ethical than reaching into other people’s pockets to give to the needy.
Buying insurance is voluntary.
If I see the insurance company doing something I disagree with, I can discontinue the policy and stop paying the premiums. Can you do that with the government?
We’ve already stated, on numerous times that we can. We can even get our ‘insurance company staff’ [politicians] fired. But you don’t want to acknowledge that, and I don’t suppose my saying so yet again will get the message across.
If you stop paying insurance you have to pay for your own healthcare, or seek another, equally corrupt company who still don’t give you any choice what they do with your money. I don’t pay tax; but I still get the same healthcare as Prince Philip.
returning to the issue at hand. I acknowledge the quality of the group that ran the questionnaire, -but did they ask for details of how much each person earned a year; measuring the amount given in proportion to a person’s income? Because, if they didn’t the questionnaire is defunct. The wealthiest countries are bound to come out top. A man who gives his entire earnings for any given day to another is in reality more generous than one who gives less than they make in an hour.
I (look at that word carefully) cannot. If I do, I will go to jail. I am not “we”. If I (again, look at that word) stop paying insurance premiums, no jail awaits. Do you see the difference?