I note a little spat regarding charity over at Timmy’s. It follows on from a comment he made in response to the utterly vile article that I, too, criticised by Zoe Williams.
Tim asked a reasonable question:
And what the fuck’s wrong with voluntary collective action rather than State enforced collective action?
The answer being, of course, nothing. Charity – genuine charity (as opposed to the fake variety or indeed any that take money from the taxpayer) is an example of the best part of human nature.
Anyway, this is wrong apparently – a cold, grey loveless thing, indeed.
Answer: charity presupposes a condition in which some people have stuff which they can do without, and some people lack stuff that they really need. This inequality (which, like all inequalities, is morally objectionable on the face of it) is only sustained by the actions of the capitalist state in enforcing property rights through its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In a more just world, there would be no need for charity because you would not have a situation in which some people have, whilst others need.
It’s difficult to take this turgid, pompous arse-dribble seriously. So, indeed, I don’t take it seriously, because it is pure wibble – meaningless twaddle – words thrown together to make a dull morass of prose without any meaning – pseud’s corner here we come.
We don’t have a capitalist state – Indeed we don’t have capitalism; what we have is state meddling and interference and theft combined with inefficiency waste and bullying at every twist and turn. And inequality is not – nor has it ever been – immoral. It is a fact of life. There will always be some who have and others who do not – and the reasons for this are myriad. I’ve been in the “do not have” camp and fought my way tooth and nail out of it. Socialism attempts to correct this “inequality” by the use of force. That is why it is evil.
As Britain’s greatest ever prime minister once wrote:
Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.
Oh, my, someone who thinks that Atlee was Britain’s greatest prime minister is not someone I can take even remotely seriously. We are still picking though the mess he left behind. And, frankly, that comment is vile beyond belief. Who was this arrogant arsehole telling others what they should do with their money? No, far better that he should steal it and decide what to do with it – because, you know, the state, that courageous thing, knows far better than the individual what to do with it. The arrogance, the pomposity, the sheer effrontery of these people. The fucking gall!
There are thousands upon thousands of people out there doing charitable works. Frankly, I would take one of them over a thousand of the state’s mean, spiteful and petty-minded apparatchiks in deciding where best money may be used to assist those in need. For it is they, not the latter, that show us the true meaning of the milk of human kindness.
And surely the act of forcefully removing somebody’s wealth through taxation also assumes they have something they can do without? The trouble is that it also assumes a third party can hold a gun to their head and demand that something for no reason other than the existence of a piece of paper saying they are entitled to do so.
Even in some make-believe world where everybody’s situation was roughly equal on average, there would be localised and short-term inequalities – which rather than cancelling out over time would tend to coalesce into larger differences and promote distinct groupings. It seems to be an underlying theme of the way nature works and is something we can be very thankful for. A world with no differences would have no trade, no innovation, no surprises and no fun – and an individual unhappy with their little slice of grey uniform boredom would have no means for self-improvement to escape their misfortune.
The answer to poverty or misfortune lies not in trying to make everybody the same but rather in removing the barriers which prevent the individual from improving their world. Most of those barriers are the creation of governments and “do-gooders”.
Precisely.
+1
Another key point about charity is that you can decide for yourself which causes to give your money to, and which not to, rather than have someone else decide it on your behalf.
If people give disproportionate sums to the Donkey Sanctuary, then that is their business.
Yup and I suspect that this is why the socialists don’t like it – we will make the “wrong” choices.
“If people give disproportionate sums to the Donkey Sanctuary, then that is their business”
Absolutely it their business. That is why modern societies do not rely on charity to provide services and benefits.
There is nothing wrong with charity in itself. What is wrong is the assumption by so many on the political right that charity can provide a large slice of what national insurance and the welfare state currently provide. Of course, those on the modern right are not entirely stupid – unprincipled and disingenuous, certainly – but not completely stupid. They know perfectly well that charity could not provide health care for those unable to afford it or provide benefits for the disabled or the unemployed. Only an institution with the resources of the modern state can do that, as is proved by even a cursory knowledge of history. Over the past 100 years, we as a society have moved away from charity being the primary means of providing care and assistance because it is uncertain and arbitrary.
There is a large amount of evidence that the NHS is “uncertain and arbitrary” in many cases, in spite of the huge (and ever-increasing) proportion of people’s incomes which are stolen to fund it. The organisation is top-heavy and tries to provide far too many “services”, leading to long waiting lists, cases of poor care/negligence and, increasingly, refusal to treat paying customers on arbitrary grounds (e.g. smoking).
And as time goes on it is moving further and further away from any pretence of providing basic, essential healthcare – instead claiming some supposed right to nag and control people and micro-manage their lives. This sort of thing inevitably ends up happening with any organisation which is funded by force, or where funding is seen as practically unlimited and decoupled from market forces.
The “welfare state” in many cases creates barriers to people helping themselves and has been manipulated for political ends. Over the past 100 (or more accurately, 60 or so) years this experiment has grown and grown from what was originally touted as a post-war temporary measure. It is now obvious that the experiment has failed (in its advertised mission anyway – it has served its political masters well) but it so deeply infests every walk of life that its removal/reversal will require an enormous effort. Nevertheless, this removal will be forced to occur sooner or later – the tax demand is exceeding the output of the ever-shrinking private sector and the government can’t keep running up their national debt forever.
“There is a large amount of evidence that the NHS is “uncertain and arbitrary” in many cases”
Not half as much as what went before it.
” It is now obvious that the experiment has failed”
Not really. People are healthier and live longer, which is a testament to the NHS and better health care.
“it so deeply infests every walk of life that its removal/reversal will require an enormous effort”
Yes, predictable apocalyptic tub-thumping from you. How exactly do you or other libertarians propose to abolish the NHS when the vast majority of people will fight for its existence?
“Nevertheless, this removal will be forced to occur sooner or later – the tax demand is exceeding the output of the ever-shrinking private sector and the government can’t keep running up their national debt forever. ”
Except this is completely untrue. The NHS consumes substantially less GDP than the health care systems of many other first world nations. According to OECD figures, the NHS is 15th in that list. Which means that it is quite affordable. When I first encountered right wing libertarians, 34 years ago at Oxford, they were predicting the imminent collapse of the NHS. You are still predicting it. And not suprisingly, you are still wrong.
People are living longer for many reasons: the NHS is not a primary one. Improved sanitation, clean and efficient fuels, safe transport, cleaner food production practices, lack of mass-involvement wars, mechanisation of previously dangerous jobs and elimination of many disease vectors are but a few. The NHS has had little or no involvement in any of those (perhaps some involvement in the last, though not anywhere near as great as some would have you believe).
Government policy is actually threatening many of the above. Sanitation in particular suffers when people cannot afford heat, light and water. “Green” policy threatens to put people back two centuries in many of these regards, constantly telling people “you can do without that”. Expensive housing and mass migration lead to overcrowded squalid conditions, restoring breeding grounds for disease vectors. Don’t believe me? Why not spend a week in East London.
If you think the NHS can go on forever in its current form I assume you are also one of the type who thinks they can spend forever on a credit card, only make minimum repayments and never be pulled up on it. It’s not just the NHS collapsing, it’s all of our infrastructure. And it is that infrastructure which has provided people with long, relatively disease-free lives.
If you (and others of a socialist leaning) genuinely want people to have better lives, why not spend some of your time directly helping those less fortunate than you, rather than campaigning for everybody else to be robbed of their income to supposedly achieve the same ends?
Maybe install or maintain heating for a friend or relative who can’t afford to pay someone to do it? Oh, wait, the government’s banned that unless you have a certificate.
Maybe help somebody clean up or do a bit of pest control? Don’t have a licence. Scuppered again.
Maybe cook them some meals? Nope, the food safety audits would be prohibitively expensive and time wasting.
Maybe clear snow and ice from their drive or footpath? The council might well threaten to sue you.
Drive them to or from somewhere they need to go? Best check with your insurance company first, expect hassle.
You must be able to see a pattern emerging.
The main people to defend the NHS are, in fact, its employees. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, so to speak. Perhaps why socialist governments have been so keen on increasing NHS bloat.
The typical man or woman in the street will be increasingly less keen on jumping to the defence of the organisation when they realise that despite a life of paying in to the bottomless pit, they are denied treatment because the powers that be have decreed them to be a “filthy smoker”, “too fat” or drink too much. It is happening. So much for “universal healthcare”.
“No, far better that he should steal it and decide what to do with it”
Nope, theft is the unlawful taking of property. Taxation is lawful in just about every country in the world. If you want a land without taxation then you will just have to buy a desert island and live on it by yourself.
Oh, I’d love to – it was always one of my boyhood dreams. I don’t have the funds, unfortunately. As it is, my only solution is aggressive tax avoidance to keep as much of my hard-earned in my pocket and away from the quangos, fake charities and think-tanks as possible.
Taxation is still the forced removal of funds with the threat of violence – the state merely gives itself a free pass. So it is theft in everything but name.
That said, I have no problem with the principle of a safety net. I have a huge problem with the state funding charities of any sort. Charity should be a personal matter – that is, the donor decides where his money should go, not the state – and if he wants to give it all to the donkey sanctuary rather than some egregious fake charity such as the NSPCC, then that’s absolutely fine. And, frankly, better spent.
“Nope, theft is the unlawful taking of property. ”
So tax isn’t theft because the people who tax you say it isn’t.
Brilliant.
Damn, you put it more succinctly than me.
Too right Steve. We shouldn’t have to rely on people’s generosity to fund organisations such as ASH, Brake, Alcohol Concern and that one that ensures that nobody puts too much salt on their chips.
CASH – bunch of interfering, prodnose, shroud-waving, thieving scumbags.
Ah! Good! I seem to be able access your site again, Longrider. I was getting messages saying that my IPA was being treated as spam!
Merry Christmas
It does get aggressive sometimes. I’ve whitelisted all of the IPs you have used so far.
How the hell can anyone confuse Indian Pale Ale with Spam, the textures and tastes are completely different?
So long they continue to steal my wages in the guise of “tax”, then I expect them to cover the bills.
Therefore FUCK charity. No matter WHO or WHICH.
I am already paying through the nose for chav scum scroungers.
Could’ agree more re the professional claimants. There are charities, eg the RNLI amongst others, which receive no state support, and even the Big Lottery Fund turned down the RNLI on the grounds that it couldn’t show positive “diversity and equality efforts” in those it helped. FFS INDEED!
Those – and smaller animal charities – are the ones I DO support – although that’s my business and I do not expect to be criticised for it, but neither to I preach to anyone else that they should fork out, as well.