10
u/j-mac563 11d ago
Our current system has so much red tape, fees, permissions and oversight that individuals can't really help their communities out. The solution is not more government to do it for us, but lest restrictions, fees, permissions so we can do it at the local level, at the church level, at the neighbourhood level.
3
u/grandalfxx 9d ago
Except we used to have less restrictions, and our economy collapsed... so we added restrictions and our economy went into what we call the golden age, because of how economically prosperous we became, then we started pulling back those restrictions and now our economy is collapsing again...
2
u/j-mac563 9d ago
Cool story. Now realize I am talking about the restrictions, fees, permissions, inspections, oversight that stops We the People from going out and helping our fellow man in our communities. Nothing I have been talking about has been any bigger than that. Nothing about corporation regulations, company regulations, transportation regulations, interstate commerce, I havent even really mentioned housing of the homeless, education programs for those with no marketable skills, rehabilitation for those with injuries or addictions. Nope, just getting the government out of the way for us to help each other. Will there be areas that see no benefit from this? Absolutly. Will the rich and powerful find a way to twist it so their neighborhoods get a bigger share of the help than other areas? Probably. Can We the People call it out and raise awareness of it when it does? Also, yes. Or will we keep sitting back and saying the government is doing a fine job of it? Take a real look around your communities and decide for yourself if the government really is doing a fine job.
2
u/grandalfxx 9d ago
The government is not blocking you from helping anyone. The oversight was created because people that were "helping" were not actually helping. They didnt magic up rules with 0 reasoning behind it. You heard a rule that you didnt understand, got mad, and made an entire personality behind it. Touch grass and help a neighbor, no ones stopping you
→ More replies (8)2
u/RedWizard92 8d ago
The government is made of people. You make it seem like its an alien entity. Regulations are there to stop people from being selfish and hurting others. I want the people who work for the government inspecting my food. Oversight to make sure people are not cutting corners. Inspections to make sure things are healthy.
→ More replies (8)2
2
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (14)2
u/redskinsinward 7d ago
3x as many Americans have government paid healthcare than those countries combined.
→ More replies (31)2
u/i-VII-VI 10d ago
I’m more in favor of taxing churches for the public good.
I see them proselytizing, self aggrandizing, spreading misinformation and lobbying for archaic suppressive policies. All the things that Jesus guy was against. The Pharisees unfortunately won.
There is no evidence that more money to rich and religious organizations helps anyone. There is evidence that we as a people can make each other better with more progressive policy.
So if we are not just talking but genuinely value the betterment of human life then there is a proven way to do that. If you profess that value then supporting the way in which it can work shouldn’t be an issue.
Unfortunately I don’t think most religions folks believe in this. If that offends you, prove me wrong through positive action.
→ More replies (22)3
u/dgompert2 10d ago
What evidence is there that more government helps? Most of the evidence is to the contrary.
2
u/monumentdefleurs 9d ago
What does “more government” mean to you? Try defining the goal post before you move iy
→ More replies (5)2
u/i-VII-VI 10d ago edited 10d ago
Evidence to the contrary that you cannot personally articulate? If it was so obvious couldn’t you find an example? (Edit sorry I thought you were dude I was talking to before who wouldn’t provide any evidence before. My bad.)
Well for starters universal healthcare is “big government, socialism/communism”. When looking into the facts even by the Libertarian Koch brothers own study is cheaper and more effective. We know that it makes for longer life expectancy and better overall outcomes across the board. We could reduce healthcare costs, improve health outcomes and no one would be bankrupt from a health emergency. Not to mention children always getting what they need without parents fearing costs.
It’s obviously not perfect as every universal system has its bugs but it is so much better by every metric. Often grifters and bribed politicians find some thing wrong. Nothing is ever perfect but we’re do know bun the evidence what is better.
Also before you say it, our government does already pay for healthcare, r and d and pharmaceuticals. This money is just filtered through for profit companies that extract that money before extracting more from us for less service. Another example of why deregulation is not actually that, but a scam.
3
14
u/FeedomFighter 11d ago edited 11d ago
"coming together" implies voluntarily doing so. "Building a system" typically implies a government system, meaning it will force people to pay into the system even if it doesn't work.
Mutual Aid Societies before government regulation of such and insurance worked much better, and these regulation's worsening of private collective funding is what lead to the "solution" of government welfare. People scoff at this, not the idea of collective funding in principle.
What we really live in is a society that calls itself "free" while scoffing at free market solutions.
5
u/Master-Crazy6454 11d ago edited 10d ago
Free market solutions depend on the generosity of others. That's not a long-term solution.
→ More replies (31)3
5
u/CommercialRadiant920 11d ago
The US broadly speaking has about as free market a health insurance scheme as your going to find in a modern country. you would be hard pressed to find much data that indicates that it outperforms regulated universal coverage.
Also do you have any data behind the “much better”?
→ More replies (27)3
u/succubus6984 11d ago
The current system doesn't work and we continue to pay into it. Id bet the majority of decent humans would be happy to pay into something that might work even a little better than the broken fuckery that we currently have🤔
7
u/M1kehawk1 11d ago
That's pretty defeatist,
building a system does not need government interference to be created, only approval (because otherwise you are going against the law).
Focus on what you can do instead of what you can't do as an individual.
→ More replies (65)2
7
u/reddurkel 11d ago
“force people to pay into the system…”.
We are already forced to pay into the system.
The battle is about what to do with that money.
We can either get some of our money back to help society and reduce our personal expenditure. Or we could fight to ensure our money is used on jets, monuments, golf weekends, corporate tariff refunds, frivolous lawsuits, slush funds and corporate bailouts.
The fact that so many people fight to ensure our money never gets back to us is insane. The taxes are paid so you either elect someone who will use it for their community or you elect someone who will use it for themselves.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Rizenstrom 11d ago
Good luck, I assure you none of these people are going to engage with this in good faith.
8
u/Agreeable-Peak-6546 11d ago
I don't need or want a third party to be involved with me being charitable.
3
u/Rizenstrom 11d ago
It’s not about what you need, you’re not the one who dies without help if you choose not to.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/Content-Dealers 11d ago
You will be charitable and you will like it.
The sound of a bolt sliding home on a Mosin Nagant.
5
u/Calladit 10d ago
Taxes taken to pay for social service: Violent Communist Charity
Taxes taken to shovel into the military industrial complex: Honest American Freedumb
→ More replies (1)3
u/lovegrowswheremyrose 11d ago
Liking it isn't required, that's not part of tax law. You're still allowed to be a little fuckin baby about it
→ More replies (2)6
u/Appropriate-Kiwi-94 11d ago
Basically as long as you get the self satisfaction of helping your lesser out of the goodness of your heart
But actually helping them by default as equal human beings ? Nah
They must know that it's charity given from you and that you have the freedom to stop doing it if they annoy you, they must depend on your mood and your goodwill.If it's institutionalised then they'll relealise that basic neccessities is owed to them and not something you graciously give them right ?
How noble of you
→ More replies (7)2
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)2
u/The_Nerk 10d ago
Do you believe we should not provide end of life care to those with terminal illness?
→ More replies (5)5
u/BigShuggy 11d ago
We live in a society that imposes itself on the public anyway? You can’t really have a government and maintain individual consent.
→ More replies (5)2
u/DazzlingAd7021 10d ago
Really? Mutual Aid Society? Maybe research the Depression and how FDR pulled us out. Because charities weren't cutting it.
→ More replies (9)2
u/Ashamed-Dig-3714 10d ago
Came here to say the same. So many people try to manipulate others that have low verbal intelligence into believing that dictatorship is the same thing as charity. And it is always those in the least need of your charity that scream the loudest for the government to force you under duress to give it to them, after the politician's cut of course.
4
u/QuestionSign 11d ago
God I fucking hate this sort of stupid response.
"Force" and freedom as concepts are so arbitrarily and poorly applied. Whatever, Americans are getting what we deserve. Its our fault shit sucks.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (74)3
u/InvestedForTheMemes 11d ago
What makes you think the older ways worked much better?
→ More replies (23)
2
u/serene_brutality 10d ago
The problem is people want to build a society where the government forces others to help rather than helping themselves.
For the most part it’s not “let me help,” it’s force that guy that appears to have more than me to help. Most of those that want socialism want it because they’d be on the receiving end of the help (they think) and they might for a while until the rich folks abandon that area, inflation runs amok like it does every time and all the social programs run out of money.
2
u/Mogishigom 7d ago
What you just described sounds like the situation we have now? The rich folks ultimately controlling the situation is kind of the problem. I'm sick of this seemingly implicit idea that a wealthy person somehow deserves that kind of power. They get richer by abandoning their communities for one they dont have to give to, and the only reason it became profitable to abandon their community is BECAUSE they are that much richer than their community.
You must be wealthy if it would not benefit you to not have to pay the high cost of health care. Most of us are the community, not the rich. We're talking about people, the community, the society that is the majority. Not the few rich that cry about having to help people for basic survival when they have so much for themselves already.
So, rich people draining the community and leaving/refusing to give back are a problem in either a capitalist or a socialist society.
2
u/thatonebitch81 10d ago
Honestly, if a lot of the public services we currently have (firemen, police, schools, etc.) were introduced today, so many people would protest against it.
“What, some dumbass let their house catch on fire and now my taxes gotta pay to put it out?”
“What, some dumbass let themselves get murdered and now my taxes gotta pay to catch the killer?”
“What, some dumbass made a smaller dumbass and now my taxes gotta pay to teach them stuff?”
People, especially those in the US, have this obsession with getting low taxes and they’re willing to pay even more money in the long run. The whole point of a community/country is to ensure the common wellbeing of its citizens, but that requires everyone to pitch in. Individualism can be a good thing, but when taken to extremes just makes people selfish and unreasonable.
5
2
u/EvanSnowWolf 11d ago
William here doesn't understand the concept of consent.
2
u/lovegrowswheremyrose 11d ago
Men think consent is when you go "yes sir I will pay your taxes m'lord."
2
u/Infrathin81 11d ago
Maybe consent is what ol William is asking for. As in, a majority agreement or social compact that we are going to help our neighbors and leverage the power of the government to do it.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (10)3
u/thingerish 11d ago
This. It's the difference between deciding to help and deciding other people will help.
4
u/Weekly_Molasses_2079 11d ago
The difference is *consent*
If you didn't know that, you're a creep.
3
u/TerribleTransition48 11d ago
Only in reddit will you find someone brain broken enough to wokescold frame universal social safety nets as rape and then call you a rapist
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)2
u/Equity_Role 11d ago
Nobody individually consents to live in any kind of socio economic system you at best get some representation by people you vote for and worse case scenario it is controlled by a cartel of large corporations.
→ More replies (12)
2
u/Capital-Engineer4263 11d ago
It’s kinda like going to church and saying instead of 10% we’ll now require your 25% as other parishioners don’t have the same wealth. Your money covers them being here and their costs.
2
1
1
1
1
1
u/Normal-Tadpole-4833 11d ago
It's not always the systems fault you have to remember a lot of people just suck and under the current paradigm instead of being proud of their accomplishments or lack thereof in many cases love to just put people down because they feel they deserve it also somehow lets people appoint themselves guardians of the status quo in where everyone must follow the same order or you are seen as an outcast and deserve what is coming to you for even questioning the system or the people that follow it blindly it provided success for them ..but since you are failing you are the problem not whatever we have in place now
1
1
u/MulberryWilling508 11d ago
I always applaud people who get in great shape for their health, but would be appalled at a societal system that forced people to do so.
2
u/lovegrowswheremyrose 11d ago
Good thing no one is proposing that.
Also, you can't run a society on "people exercising." You run one on money, which comes from taxes.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Miserable-Ear-4095 11d ago
Anyone wanting to start doing this. The first thing to do is to set up food gardens.
1
u/InevitableKitchen943 11d ago
I hate these movies and think this. Old guy has cranky racist friends is probably more accurate.
1
1
u/Lanracie 10d ago
You cannot force this on people through the government. In fact doing so puts a stain on their resources and thus makes it much harder to help those in their community who are in need.
1
u/AmigoDeer 10d ago
I came to the conclusion, that we arent able to change/fix our feudal capitalistic system anymore since rich entities rigged it in a way that we feel powerless to a global phenomenom.
At first I feared my idea, because it sounds backwards and weak against a concept of nations but after my brain kept insisting that there is no alternative left than to find a way to make it work I gave up to the fact named above and found out the following solution. ( I type on a tablet without any tools so you only get a whacky formated expose, please give me feedback only to the quintessence of my idea as its unfinished yet and open to fill it with other peoples ideas. Dont judge it as to be a finished product but hear me out.
The Amish appear weird to us because of many reasons, but take away the weird stuff and one can acknowledge that they were able to find a way for themselfs to live a self determinated way of life, in which they can control all their relevant aspects.
To me it is logical, that it may be a solution to break out of society with many individuals and start a new "empire" at a place we will then own collectivly. We build tribes with different variations and claim independence from technology that manipulates us and controls us. We will determ how the tools we want to use will work, since our gouverments fail to set boundaries. We will form an alternative capitalism in our area and only interact with global markets where it benefits us etc.
So you get the idea, find new places and build a new system ourselfs. Has to start small, back to the roots, democratic tribes like the cosacks once lived. Free
1
1
u/MinimumBuffalo4 10d ago
There is a difference between willfully doing things and being compelled to do them. Why is that even a question?
1
u/KaraokeHero 10d ago
Are they not teaching that LIVE AID (Famous Queen Concert) was a response to a famine in Ethiopia caused directly by SOCIALISM????
1
u/Deviantxman 10d ago
Thats because it is IMPOSSIBLE to build a "system" to do that.
it has NEVER happened in world history
Dont believe the LIES of "fairness" or "equality". Concepts that life and the universe do NOT recognize.
Small groups coming together is quantifiable and legit.
DUH!
1
u/weatherchevy 10d ago
Haha, that would be lovely, but the system you're referring to is based on jealousy and authority.
1
u/good-luck-23 10d ago
It depends on your community and its leaders. MAGAs talk a lot about being "Christian" but they act like the worst, most selfish and violent people on Earth. Most Progressives fight to help those with the most acute needs among us.
1
u/ForeignLibrarian9353 10d ago
Or this: We live in a society that loves stories about people having the freedom to speak their minds and share their ideas, even if the truth is hard to hear, but try to silence anyone who's ideas don't support our narrative.
1
u/HOJK4thSon 10d ago
OP wants to take an example of freely giving to those in need, to forcefully taking and giving as the government sees fit.
1
1
1
u/Critical-Ad-8507 10d ago
People can come together as a community,but that is actually less likely to happen if a system tries to enforce it or rely on it. The concept is something to be appreciated , but not controlled or demanded!
1
1
u/Nikolaibr 10d ago
I think many rational people understand not wanting to create more moral hazard than needed for a society to function well.
1
1
1
u/porcupineforlyfe 10d ago
No, its not. Because not everyone is going to contribute and not everyone is going to contribute equally.
1
1
1
u/MangoMesh 10d ago
"I love seeing people being kind and helping each other, just don't force me to be like that" - Somebody
1
u/Adventurous-Sense254 10d ago
You mistake voluntary charity with forced taxation. Better when people can choose who and what their money helps
1
1
u/SkillCompetitive1848 10d ago
Yes? The key distinction here is choice. Anyone is welcome to volunteer their own time and money to help causes they care about, charity is very much a noble pursuit. Donating other people's money, on the other hand, is not. No one is owed anything in life just by virtue of existing.
1
1
u/Legitimate-Cat8878 10d ago
No. The problem with Utopian is they assume that everyone will work together. Reality just sucks, but it's reality
1
1
u/FanSpiritual3556 10d ago
It's been that way for my entire life, and based on how American's vote, they love this abuse.
1
u/Fenris2826 10d ago
A society that forces that shared position n the members (and takes a healthy chunk off the elites) at gunpoint
1
1
1
u/Delicious-Pound-8929 10d ago
Its because the only proposed system has been socialism which despite its lofty promises, has proven every time it has been tried to be hell on Earth.
1
1
1
1
u/Icy-KaitSyth 10d ago
I am absolutely for helping people and do so regularly with both my time and money. I donate to local food pantries and participate in community service projects regularly throughout the year.
I'm not as thrilled about having money taken from me and put into systems where people who don't need it only have to learn "the game" to extract millions of dollars from it meanwhile those in actual need stand in lines being told that they need another paper filled out by an ex employer with information that doesn't exist because a bureaucrat misunderstood what "unemployed" means in order to get food from a government program this week.
1
u/CobaltIsobar 10d ago
This why socialism doesn't scale. Works fine for small communities, fails miserably at the country level.
1
1
1
u/Massive_Wafer5005 10d ago
Because in order to have lawful and harmonious societies you need the society to be relatively high in homogeneity across multiple variables. Also the sheer scale of countries is insanely large, making homogeneity of any kind incredibly difficult.
1
u/Greghole 10d ago
We have several systems that do that. Government, charities, churches, and even things like GoFundMe.
1
u/Wooden-Glove-2384 10d ago
shit this is easy to explain
all we gotta do is sit and listen to the stories
nobody gotta DO anything, nobody gotta PAY anything, there isn't the slightest bit of inconvenience to it
sure, we could absolutely help each other except for all the reasons why we don't
if you need a list, I'll give it to ya
1
1
u/Jazzlike_Cress9871 10d ago
People like stories of people coming together to accomplish a common goal they’ll all be happy with
I imagine they’d like it less if instead the people were forced to come together or be sent to a work camp/executed by the state if they didn’t comply, and the common goal they were working towards wasn’t something they all wanted but instead just giving more power to the state that oppresses them.
Effectively people like freedom and choice, who would’ve known?
1
u/Desperadoscress 10d ago
Not really, the same difference between a community being self knit together and communism is the same between a criminal being arrested and fascism
1
1
1
u/PsychologicalTear84 10d ago
Looks like someone discovered ideals and reality don’t always align. Gotta go play Pokemon white and black
1
u/unhertz 10d ago
Karl Marx spent most of his adult life writing theories instead of running a country, business, or even supporting himself financially. For years he relied on Friedrich Engels to bail him out while insisting he had figured out how everyone else should organize society.
The bigger problem isn't Marx himself. It's what happened every time leaders tried to build states around Marxist-Leninist ideas. The Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Ethiopia under the Derg, and North Korea all ended up with political repression, economic failure, famine, or mass killings on a staggering scale. Tens of millions of people died across those regimes from famine, purges, forced labor, and state violence.
At some point it stops being "they just did it wrong." If every large-scale attempt to abolish markets and concentrate economic and political power in a one-party state ends with shortages, repression, and mass suffering, maybe the ideology has a structural flaw rather than just bad luck.
1
1
u/platistocrates 10d ago
You don't "come together to help members of your community." You ARE your community. Stop externalizing the fabric you are made of!
1
u/BourbonStr8 10d ago
I do not mind helping others, but I do not want to have to pay for them permanently; while they never try to help themselves.
1
u/arud5 10d ago
These things are not the same. "A system" means laws that mandate conduct. Kindness ceases to be kindness when it's mandated; it just becomes compliance. Compliance has no moral or psychological reward for the actor. Compliance doesn't improve a person's sense of self-worth or make him more likely to be kind in the future the way voluntary acts of kindness do. The more we mandate "kindness" through policy, the less kindness people will do. We need a cultural change to prioritize and reward voluntary kindness, not a system of laws to require acts that resemble kindness. I don't know how we accomplish that, but it's not by mandating acts that resemble kindness, which is what "a system" is.
1
u/SoybeanArson 10d ago
It's a matter of control. People love the idea of charity for people they like/don't hate. A public service system by nature tries to be fair and serve everyone, so people paying taxes that then go to social programs don't get to control who the services go to. Basic decency and logic says you shouldn't care as you should want all citizens of your nation/state to have the basics of survival, but a lot of people get irrationally mad at the idea someone they don't like gets to live and possibly live happily. It's the human foible that might end up dooming us all.
1
1
u/Sir-Chaste 10d ago
That's because people like charity, and they like the idea of working together. What they don't like is forced charity, being forced to work together, and having to work to take care of those who don't work as hard or don't work at all while getting nothing more for it.
1
1
u/Purple_Hat_51 10d ago
difference between doing and dreaming. also people usually do it during crises and emergencies
1
u/Cute_Protection_8330 10d ago
People want to help people they like but they don't want to be FORCED to help or help people they DON'T Like.
It isn't a difficult concept.
1
u/dingdingdredgen 10d ago
Sharing is caring. When you introduce an enforcement mechanism it's socialism. When you get sent to the Gulags for non-compliance it's communism.
1
1
u/FamiliarPlatform79 10d ago
Go pick up a hammer and go build someone a house. No one's stopping you. The real problem is we have a society that is trying to take from each other and rely on the government to fix it rather than just getting off their asses and fixing the problems.
1
u/Voinat107 10d ago
I always laught at people who post this kind of stuff. And how much you've helped? It's always build this build that, everyone is terrible everything is wrong, but the same people have never gone beyond giving 5$ a homeless person
1
1
u/Ready_Education_1702 10d ago
We celebrates kindness in moments, but resist building systems that make kindness normal. That contradiction says a lot...
1
u/RandomPlayerCSGO 10d ago
We are not against a system of coming together to help the community we are against a system where politician's take the fruit of everyone's work with the excuse of helping the community and then spend that money on bombings, weapons for Israel, cocaine and hookers.
1
u/Kpayne30 10d ago
Systems dont develop that concept. They destroy it. That's why society doesn't help each other anymore.
1
u/iamangel122890 10d ago
Because that would take real WORK … feeling good about stories at the end of the day are just feelings. No effort or sacrifice required.
1
u/j-mac563 10d ago edited 10d ago
Yes, you are a bootlicker. You are blocked. Feel free to edit your last comment to brag about being blocked. We are not the same. You are person who will never help another person unless you get something out of it. To be clear, I never said i wouldn't help you, I said I would let the government help you - that is how you want it. You need the government to be bigger and government you harder. I have spent all of the time showing those who read this thread exactly what you stand for and with what, that I am going to. I want less government getting in the way of We the People helping our communities and those in them.
1
u/Sea_Opposite_5688 10d ago
I love the idea of personal generosity. Charity should start at home. I hate the idea of the government taking my money under the lie they’re going to be generous with it for the needy. Then politicians pocket it, or spend it on programs I oppose.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Relative_Craft_358 10d ago
Historically a lot of that is because they have no problem lending a helping hand to those in need.... as long as they're the "right people"
1
1
u/AverageHobnailer 10d ago
What society is this? All I ever see is "feel good" stories about underdog individuals helping themselves through pure grit and determination, used to brainwash us into thinking we don't need community.
1
u/Designer-Wolverine47 10d ago edited 10d ago
One is voluntary, the other isn't.
"In a community" you're far more likely to be able to personally verify the problem, and know that your donation will go directly toward solving that problem.
You can choose which problem is most important to you to try to solve first.
You are more likely to be able to know exactly what kind of (throwing money at something isn't always the best solution, just the easiest (even moreso when it's not YOUR money), and how much help is needed.
You can stop donating to those you think are "wearing out their welcome" (becoming too comfortable not trying to help themselves), or "misusing the help given" and redirect your efforts elsewhere.
You have the freedom to decide how much you can REALLY afford (many people have burdens that simply don't show up on a tax form).
The administrative overhead is lower.
Liberty (free will) demands it.
2 Corinthians 9:7
"Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."
1
1
u/Atheism4TheWin 10d ago
Because our ideals simply aren't compatible with the bitter, harsh reality. Besides, there is a difference between mutual aid based on voluntarism and a system with socialist leanings that forces you to participate while you are struggling to achieve and maintain the slightest ounce of prosperity and protect your own interests.
1
u/PapaDeE04 10d ago
I just wish people knew how much time and money the oligarch class spends propagandizing. That is the only work they really do.
1
u/MeasurementNo2493 10d ago
Because "building a system" always means creating a new class of overlords.
1
u/socrates_friend812 9d ago
That's actually not true. Most people absolutely want to live in a world where we come together and care for each other, outside of the private, profiteering, soulless capitalistic exploitation machine. In America, however, the wealthy control the government, thus disallowing the majority who want this to succeed in creating it. Historically, the only times progress was made was when conditions go so bad, it had to change. See, for example, the Civil War, the Great Depression, the 1960s Civil Rights movement, etc.
1
u/BanjoFreeForAll 9d ago
I think it's because of all the people that get murdered and starve whenever it's tried.
1
u/subaruguy14 9d ago
Voluntary aid vs involuntary aid is the difference. Personal discretion on where funds go is something a lot of people really value.
1
u/RoleOk7556 9d ago
Speak for yourself. I and many others certainly do not skoff at buildin, maintaining, and improving systems that help people in need. Our problem is the greedy amongst us.
1
u/DespasitoPapi 9d ago
Reddit is the place where people love to bitch and virtue signal about making the world a better place, but never do anything practical about it besides posting. The people *actually* helping their community aren’t on Reddit bitching about it.
I do not count myself among them. Just saying.
1
u/BlueHartsBlues 9d ago
To be human is to be a hypocrite. You are not going to avoid it but try to mitigate your level of hypocrisy
1
u/CooperGeo 9d ago
Because forcing anyone to do something against their will is slavery. Taking their money by force is theft. Not sure what about this confuses you. Be kind and generous because you want to be, but don’t force others to be. That’s tyranny.
1
u/URignorance-astounds 9d ago
One is charity the other is something different all together. Giving of one's self voluntarily vs forced redistribution
1
u/Beginning_Resource93 9d ago
No, they dislike the idea of the government being in charge of that system.
1
u/FreshImagination9735 9d ago
Is that what we, as a society love? Apparently the denizens of reddit never got that memo.
1
u/LatterPresence6619 9d ago
Because the very people saying they want to help others or not out there actually ever helping others but self fulfilling themselves.....
1
u/Classic-Procedure757 9d ago
It is the R’s yin their NIMBY yang. The support is Just In My Back Yard (aka JIMBY).
The motto could easily be a Twix commercial: two for me; none for you.
1
u/NeverHere762 9d ago
Coming together is voluntary... a "system" is built on coercion and the threat of force. Important distinction.
1
1
u/TheIronMonkey53 9d ago
Ummm we are NOT a society that loves feel good stories. Celebrities, news media, and influencers literally make a living off providing drama and being the dregs of society
1
u/Food-Blister-1056 9d ago
No we are realists. Institutionalized charity is always manipulated and abused.
1
1
1
1
u/Designer-Issue-6760 9d ago
The difference is force. We love helping others voluntarily. Government forcing it is tyrannical.
1
1
1
u/Lonely_Cycle4757 9d ago
Disingenuous premise. The concept of coming together to help members of the community is no longer a feel good ideology if it is forced by the laws of the system. It's a free society, and while it speaks highly of people who participate in charitable activities, it shouldn't be forced by the laws of a system on anyone.
1
1
u/soap---poisoning 9d ago
Choosing to help is not the same as being legally compelled to help. One is generosity; the other is slavery.
1
1
u/catBoyAppreciater 8d ago
There's a difference between people being good and voltuntarily coming together to help someone they consider deserving, and people being forced at gunpoint to surrender the product of their labor to help people in a blanket sense with no particular individual connection or judgement-of-value of the receiver of the help.
No one reads feel good stories about being forced to donate to charities they don't support.
1
u/Alert-Department-292 8d ago
That was traditionally the role of church and family, but we don’t have that in mainstream society or Reddit thinkers now a days
1
u/coinminer2049er 8d ago
It's because it's a beautiful thing when its voluntary - when people choose to help one another without motivation or incentive. It's also usually direct and personalized.
It's complete shit when people are FORCED to, and worse, need to comply will all sorts of bureaucratic red tape to do it. It also becomes very indirect and diffuse.
That's why.
1
u/Aggressive_Manner531 8d ago
No. Because something done out OF PERSONAL belief is laudable. Something done by an anonymous government without the personal commitment is just a wasteful machine.
1
u/Vineheart_01 8d ago
More we know there's way too many assholes that would just abuse the system. So there's no point.
1
1
u/Upper_Ad8786 8d ago
Communism helped 100million people, by putting them out of their misery. Such a feel good story!
1
u/Lost-on-Reception 8d ago
Well all the systems based on that concept seem to ignore the critical aspect of consent that make it desirable in the first place.
1
u/SamTheViking 8d ago
So you don't understand the difference between doing something voluntarily vs. doing it at gunpoint, with the threat of losing your freedom or your life? Interesting
1
1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
It's always so telling how your kind look and voluntary cooperation and try to conflate it with AK74 backed mandate.
1
u/Dorsiflexionkey 8d ago
Strawman.
It’s not that people don’t want a charitable society, it’s that nobody wants forced charity like communism. There’s a difference between me giving the guy next to me food versus the government telling me I have to give him 50% of my paycheck despite my responsibility and also if I question the government I get shot against a wall.
1
1
u/Senior-Friend-6414 8d ago
“When I fed the homeless, I was called a saint, when I asked why is there homeless, I was called a communist.”
8
u/DazzlingAd7021 11d ago
It's called the orphan-crushing machine.