undertheice
Well-Known Member
first, i have to tell you that i thoroughly enjoyed your rant. as disjointed and confused as it was, it was also one of the best laughs i've had today. next, you're quite correct. i am what used to be called a liberal. before the welfare state nonsense, the entitlements and the massive abuse of the violent powers of the state, liberals actually believed in the individual's power to control his own destiny. now that liberalism has become a mask of false compassion worn by statist dupes, i find that my beliefs and theirs have little in common.
what i found most amusing was that i am suddenly a statist pig because i believe in the ability of the people to take care of themselves without the massive interference of the welfare state and that i am a nationalist nutjob because i find merit in the american people's willingness to choose charity. perhaps you'd prefer that it was the state that performed all these charitable functions, instead of merely providing the incentive of the odd deduction here and there. while i would prefer that each man who could would give purely out of a truly charitable nature, i am not so foolish as to believe in the universal altruism of humanity. that a man should receive a tiny percentage of his donation back as an incentive to do what is right seems a small price to pay for guiding him toward a more generous existence. is it really such an act of statism to believe in allowing a man to keep some extra piece of what he has earned for being better than he needs to be?
every time an individual donates to help feed, clothe or house someone in need, that donation represents an easing of the strain on our welfare system and increases the possibility that the recipient of that charity may end his dependence on the state entirely. whenever someone helps support a school or museum they make an investment in the community and in the education of future generations. those who give to protect our environment, aid in disaster relief or provide support for the elderly increase the value of our society and help to sustain our moral duties. in one of the world's wealthiest nations, all of this should be done. the alternative to private funding is to demand the heavy hand of the state be used to provide us with these services. we have seen how slipshod a job our government does when faced with these tasks, the waste, the corruption and the inefficiency. should every penny of private donations be subject to deduction, the savings to the taxpayer would still be more than sufficient to offset the loss of revenue to the state.
the more i read back on your post, the more the selfishness and jealousy of your stance reveals itself. you worry that your taxes are adversely effected by allowing the charitable to hold back some extra bit of what they have earned. you worry that somehow your money might be mixed in with the willing donations of others. you seem to be quite concerned that someone else may be getting something out of this whole charity thing that you can't get a piece of. perhaps you have some deep seated distrust of charity in general or have that naive belief that good works are always to be considered their own reward. i'm certainly not going to try to figure that shit out. quite frankly, i really couldn't care less.
