Voting a tax increase is far different that donating your own money. You are voting to force others who may not agree with you to pay under threat of government violence. If you are asking me to provide resources then that is also a different story. And if you are persuasive I just might change my allocation of charitable donations. That is doing it right.

Added: I don't think the parent comment is wrong. It IS our duty to perform charity. But it should not be forced on us.

If it can be done through charity, why hasn't it?

People have shown time and again that it does take action through central authority to enact societal change because people will not "change [their] allocation of charitable donations" accordingly or have an allocation of charitable donations at all.

Societal progress in the face of injustice takes action from society as a whole.

Fortunately, "no I don't want to give back to the society I take from" doesn't fly with the IRS.

So you would base aids to the less fortunate on the willingness of those who have more to "donate" to those who have less ?

How would you go to make it happen, practically ?

Since people willing to donate have no real vision of people who are in need, you would need some sort of organization to collect the donations and distribute them.

This organization would need to run some sort of policies in order to make sure the people asking for donations are actually in real need of those.

You also would need to pay the people needed to run these organizations, perform the checks, mantaining a database of people in need and donators, and perform the actual donations.

For any country (remember, a country is responsible to the welfare of all its citizens, not only the ones well-off), working with possibly millions of willing donors and petitioners, pulling off something like this without a predictable budget and some defined policies and rules is quite hard.

Thus the modern welfare state, which might not be an ideal (or even efficient) solution, but a better one has not been invented yet.

> Since people willing to donate have no real vision of people who are in need,

They usually do, it fits their vision of what a "worthy" recipient of benefits looks like. Relying on charity to provide social services would mean a significant portion of people would be cut out from receiving them, either due to policy or the lack of donations.

I really think that IDF drafting and military service should be implemented in the US, just so people can see what exactly is government forcing something upon you ...

you can say he/they have moral responsibility. but laws are what they are, and that is truly the only real responsibility for all of us. just that you feel strongly about something and feel that it is the right way doesn't make it any more enforceable.

please note that I +- agree with you. anon3_ 2 had a slightly ignorant comment, maybe not intended, but I understand his view too (albeit I don't agree that much). the thing is, if he is really rich, he for sure wants to live in calm, secure and stable society where he isn't threatened daily just because he worked hard and now he is well off. For that, there needs to be broad(er) prosperity. Poor hungry people won't stay quiet for long. On the other hand, let's face it - people are lazy. not all of course, but many. Create easy conditions, and very few will do their best for society (aka work). Create too hard conditions, and many will break without ever reaching their potential.

I think state should be there to give a helping hand to those who work hard to make better life for themselves, but NOT make the better life for themselves. How? Now that's a question nobody has really good answer for :) I would bet on proper public schooling with high wages and great inspiring teachers. Add a non-abusable health care system (statement ridiculous in real world on its own), and society will flourish. All US would need is divert maybe half of cash for waging useless wars around the globe... ah wait

> you have a responsibility to be charitable to those less fortunate than you.

According to whom? I never signed up for this.

The only "responsibilities" (what a loaded word; you automatically imply we're irresponsible if we disagree with you) I acknowledge are those I took on of my own volition.

I think it a slightly different way. As a thinking person who is (somewhat) self-actualized I feel it is my duty to perform charity. The type and amount are my choice. And I feel that other thinking people should feel the same way. So I will remind them or attempt to persuade them if they are ignoring (what I feel is) their duty.

"Persuade them" how? By legally requiring them to pay taxes under threat of violence?

Precisely not that way.

> According to whom?

Most good and considerate people who aren't complete shitheads

Ah, right. A convincing argument; if I don't agree with your social deontology, I'm a shithead. You've persuaded me!

No, I'm not trying to convince someone who has made up their mind. You're really backing yourself up into that corner, though.

Most higher organizations/clubs/associations/families engage in philanthropy and charity, most religions espouse the virtues or godliness of good will towards others and, again, most people who have the capacity to feel will agree that extending that empathy towards others is a good thing.

The point is most people, especially those who see things from a higher level socially and intellectually, recognize the value of compassion and selflessness.

Someone who balks at the suggestion that they have a responsibility as a good person to be considerate, who embodies the message of Ayn Rand's Anthem, might be considered immature. A shithead, even.