Sean

As a fierce proponent of any honest opinion, the following was contributed to my blog by Mr. Sean.

"What responsibility do we have to mankind? Do we owe those who are otherwise unable to provide for themselves the chance to even begin the process? Some would argue that to do so would somehow cheat them out of what is rightfully theirs. Their motives are understandable. We all want to lay claim to what is ours, and when the someone (or some institution) takes it away, we become upset. Alas, let me appeal to the selfish side of humanity to make the case for helping others.

Imagine if we could just give the unfortunate the little boost they needed to make a better life. Instead of wallowing in their poverty, they themselves would be able to not only start the process of providing for themselves, but also start contributing to the success of other underprivileged. Perhaps philanthropists could take care of it all. The truly rich could spare a few dollars to help those out. But, there are too many for that. We all need to toss a little into the hat to make it work. When everyone contributes, albeit a little bit, we all succeed.

If that's true, why do we still have poor citizens in our liberal, "bleeding" country. Because no government or social structure is perfect. We will never achieve the utopia that we seek. But, that's not the point. The point is to try. The value is in the journey, not the destination. If we all keep trying, the best we can ask for is to help as many as we can.

"Wait, I thought you were going to appeal to my selfishness to make your point?" Sorry, sometimes I get caught up in feeling bad for other people. Well, it comes down to this. Our system, as imperfect as it is, only works if ALL of us help. In fact, that's the only way it can be affordable.

No one WANTS to see their hard earned money go to do things they can't see. But, I imagine we would feel the effects of not contributing to the "good of the whole" a lot more acutely."

My response:
I removed my previous whimsical response. It was dark and sarcastic, and when talking about such important issues there is no place for sarcasm - or any twists, spins, or attacks. I just found the above so preposterous. Its trite and dangerous assumptions left no hope for a reasonable and timely answer. (This exchange was during a social gathering.) No one is going to read this, so I won't bother, but I am simply amazed that individuals, very bright and thoughtful individuals that I respect, can accuse me of not feeling bad for people. Is someone excused from making such an accusation just because politics is involved? How many times does it need to be said that we need to base our decisions and arguments on results and not our intentions. I can weep rivers for the poor and it will not help them. Please appeal to my intellectual side, leave out the attacks, and I very much look forward to another reasonable discussion (as we've had many).

2/3/08 Let the record show that I may have misinterpreted Shawn here. While discussing these issues I often fail to illustrate the subtle differences between my positions and those of heartless bastards. It's easy to forget how often sound principles are expressed and applied in inappropriate ways. It is true that the concept of individual liberty is sometimes used as a justification for socially irresponsible behavior. I believe the preservation of individual liberty and its key role in virtually any personal success requires philanthropy. As a matter of fact, the folks who disagree are the ones who have, through irresponsible behavior, turned a voluntary tax system into one of coercion in the first place.