Originally posted by FMFNo, it was a pay off.
If his regime gave assistance to the needy and deprived then yes it was charity. If they had to buy those services at market rates then it wasn't charity.
There is a big difference. Germans sold their souls and their humanity.
I looked up the word and found this at Wikipedia:
Giving[edit]
Charity (practice), the practice of being benevolent, giving and sharing
Charity (virtue), the Christian theological concept of unlimited love and kindness
Dāna, the virtue of giving, generosity and benevolence in Indian traditions
Principle of charity in philosophy and rhetoric
Tzedakah, a Hebrew concept commonly used to signify charity
Zakah, the Islamic concept of mandatory alms-giving, often translated as "charity"
Sadaqah, the Islamic concept of voluntary alms-giving, often translated as "charity"
I supposed for those that believe being forced to give they line up with
the Zakah which is the Islamic concept of mandatory alms-giving. If you
believe it must be voluntary I'd say watching the government give your
money away would not be thought of as charity, in my opinion.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by KellyJayIf your government distributes tax revenue to people in need of charity, and if democratic, is in theory composed of people you elect and people appointed by those you elect, then your wish for say, victims of the Haiti earthquake to receive help from your government's agencies, and your willingness to have part of your tax bill go that way, would IMO show that the virtue of charity resides in you.
Can the Governments giving be called charity or is it something else?
If someone resentfully and grudgingly paid taxes that went to help these victims, it would not IMO express the virtue of charity, as it does not reside in them in that case (this is not to say they would lack that virtue in other things they are happy to support, say, say, government support of cancer research.)
The reason for this opinion is that there is no reason IMO to regard people as uncharitable simply because they are in a democracy in which some of their tax dollars go to help people they allow the democratic system to decide, instead of deciding themselves. Supporting a democracy that is charitable, is charitable.
Edit: I am not arguing that government charity is a good in itself.
Originally posted by whodeyBe that as it may, but the answer to the OP is yes ~ like I said before, there is the charity of individuals ~ its voluntary nature, the selection of recipients or causes, how much is allocated ~ and there is corporate or institutional private sector charity, which is not the same form of charity, and there is charity in the public sector/domain, organised and coordinated by public employees on behalf of society through the deliberations and decisions of its elected representatives.
No, it was a pay off.
There is a big difference. Germans sold their souls and their humanity.
Originally posted by JS357Well I certainly wouldn't give government carte blanche ~ but I think there are structural problems and deficiencies that can only be addressed consistently by institutions on a certain scale ~ and which need to be done for the wider benefit of society. But this does not mean there is automatic approval for whatever those targets may be or how the targets are tackled. Deliberations on those things belong in the political and civil society domain.
Edit: I am not arguing that government charity is a good in itself.
I think for this discussion to be meaningful we need to look at the various things government spends its money on. First off there are the government employees, this is a wage bill and clearly cannot count as charity, neither can military spending, or spending on other equipment. Spending on industry and infrastructure is investment, one could categorize education spending here as well. So the areas they spend money on which could qualify as charitable are social security, pensions, health, and overseas aid. In the United Kingdom there are two taxes on income, normal tax and national insurance - having paid our national insurance contributions then social security, health provision and pensions are ours by right. They are not therefore charity, we have collectively already paid for them. So the only category that could possibly count as charity is overseas aid. This is a tool of foreign policy, if this is charity then charity is suspect. So no I do not think that government spending can be regarded as charitable.
Originally posted by FMFSince I regard government spending on social security and so forth as simply what is due back to us I would not regard that as charity. The only spending I can think of that could qualify is overseas aid and that is a tool of foreign policy, a matter of calculation rather than empathy. So I simply cannot think of anything they spend money on which would qualify. What government spending do you regard as charitable?
The term "government spending" and "government giving" [in the context of "charity"] are not the same thing.
As a matter of language to give is to spend. What is given is spent, as in no more from the point of view of the giver. I agree that to spend is not necessarily to give as one might expect something in return. Where there is no obvious obligation, such as with pensions, then governments always expect something back.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhen we had the double whammy earthquake and volcanic eruption here in the provincial city where I live about 8-9 years ago, for example, and money came in from numerous countries, some going directly into the hands of local authorities, while most of the money was channelled through national and international charities and civil society organisations, I think it's a bit of stretch ~ and a somewhat jaundiced one ~ to categorize this as "a tool of foreign policy".
Since I regard government spending on social security and so forth as simply what is due back to us I would not regard that as charity. The only spending I can think of that could qualify is overseas aid and that is a tool of foreign policy, a matter of calculation rather than empathy. So I simply cannot think of anything they spend money on which woul ...[text shortened]... is no obvious obligation, such as with pensions, then governments always expect something back.
Meanwhile, government donations and grants to private sector charities tackling all manner of societal problems, domestically and internationally, is discretionary and charitable and therefore a form of "government spending" that is totally different in nature from stuff like salaries for government employees, and funding for entitlements, military spending, and infrastructure.
Originally posted by FMFI'm completely prepared to be cynical about the motives behind government aid, even on disaster relief. However, it's a good answer and I'm prepared to accept the categorization of benevolent self interest as charity. The nagging question in my mind is whether the self-interest is benevolent or not.
When we had the double whammy earthquake and volcanic eruption here in the provincial city where I live about 8-9 years ago, for example, and money came in from numerous countries, some going directly into the hands of local authorities, while most of the money was channelled through national and international charities and civil society organisations, I think i ...[text shortened]... s for government employees, and funding for entitlements, military spending, and infrastructure.
Originally posted by whodeyA prostitute sells a service or product. Paying for one is "charity"? You're so intent on being facetious and ostentatiously mean-spirited you just end up sounding daft and unpleasant.
If that is your answer, then paying for a whore is charity as well I presume.
Originally posted by JS357What makes charity, charity?
If your government distributes tax revenue to people in need of charity, and if democratic, is in theory composed of people you elect and people appointed by those you elect, then your wish for say, victims of the Haiti earthquake to receive help from your government's agencies, and your willingness to have part of your tax bill go that way, would IMO show tha ...[text shortened]... haritable, is charitable.
Edit: I am not arguing that government charity is a good in itself.
Is it because of who gets something, why it was given, does it cost the one giving?