
Originally Posted by
Hitcher
"Support" should involve more than throwing money at people via the Department of Sexual Warfare. On that basis African orphans are definitely better off.
I wonder if the incidence of criminal behaviour is as high in African orphans as it is amongst social welfare recipients.
Doubt you’ll get many arguments about the need for someting other than the judicious application of cash to the problem. But have you not noticed the reluctance (locally) in most cases to accept support other than the “no strings” monetary type?
Let’s start by calling things by their proper name. The correct word for the support of the less capable members of society is charity. By it’s very nature charity is offered by one individual to another. Identifying a portion of the public purse as being available for the task is not charity. Neither is the apportioning of it by the bureau responsible for (insert currently fashionable acronym(s) here) welfare.
The giving of assistance to the needy by those capable of delivering it is a wonderful thing to witness. True charity may not always be effective in changing poor social behaviour, but the bulk-funding of unproductive and seriously anti-social lifestyle choices can never be.
Even if we fail to receive better returns for our alms the very least we “should” do is remove the constraints from those amongst us (officially sanctioned or otherwise) who would offer genuine charity. Collectively or individually the more effective type of support comes with a price tag: change.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Bookmarks