Forced charity is unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Clive At Five, Oct 27, 2008.

  1. Clive At Five macrumors 65816

    Clive At Five

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    #1
    I personally believe I have a responsibility to help my fellow humans in a charitable fashion to the best of my ability. I'll admit that I don't tithe 10% at church, but I do set aside a portion of my disposable income for charity. Compared to my income, it's a relatively small percentage and I'm willing to be honest with myself and say that I feel I should give more. Does that give someone else the right to say the same? Does anyone else have the authority to tell me that I am not charitable enough? I've suffered through 16 years of school to get the education I have and I work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year to the earn the income that I do. Who, other than myself, has the right to say that I don't give enough... or that I should give anything at all?

    For the sake of argument, say some modern-day Robin Hood were to opine that I did not give enough in charity and, acting on that opinion, were to rob me at gunpoint and redistribute my hard-earned money to someone else. Though (s)he means well, would it be ethical of him or her to do so? Does that person have the right to decide how charitable I should be?

    I firmly believe that Charity is a choice. I believe that I deserve the right to choose to give what I earn to others who need it. Likewise, I believe I deserve the right to choose to keep what I feel I need for my family and myself.

    Social government programs, like those supported by Democrats including Barack Obama and moderate Republicans like John McCain, are not unlike the modern day Robin Hood mentioned above. Though they may mean well, are they ethical? Does the government reserve the right decide how much of my hard-earned income should go to charitable causes and subsequently seize that amount by force (via the IRS)?

    A government is supposed to represent all of its constituents. You and I may agree in our opinions that each human should be responsible for helping one another. The simple reality is that not everyone shares that opinion. Suppose that 95% of people believed in charity and 5% didn't. If we as a majority group were to set up a charity government, we would be imposing our beliefs on the other 5% whether they agreed or not. Even though we might mean well, this sort of imposition IS NO BETTER than imposing heterosexuality on a minority group of people who don't choose it... or Christianity on an atheist. We MUST have the choice!

    Meanwhile if 95% of everyone else TRULY believed in charity, they would give it, regardless of whether a governing body imposed it or not. The true test of the charitableness of humankind is to let us be charitable on our own will. Those who are charitable will be charitable. Those who are not won't be.

    No matter the outcome, it is NOT for the government to forcibly decide how charitable you or I or anyone else "should" be. That is not charity, people. That is theft... and last I checked, theft was unconstitutional.

    -Clive
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    So you don't think you should pay taxes then? :rolleyes:

    Your current choice is between an Obama government giving your money to the poor or a McCain government giving your money to the rich. Make your choice, citizen!!
     
  3. detz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    #3
    Theft is using 30+% of OUR money to fund their agendas...this does include a very expensive and useless war! ;) I would rather see my "stolen" money go to give ALL people health care, help out people in ruff times(Welfare, unemployment, etc..) and education(Better schools, cheaper higher education) then pay to murder innocent people(Almost 100k on this war alone). A society is only as strong as its people and we're getting less intelligent and sicker by the day thanks for the Republican agenda.
     
  4. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
     
  5. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #5
    Eh. Move to a real capitalist country where they don't do that, some place like...



    ...




    ...



    ...



    I'm thinking, give me a minute...
     
  6. Clive At Five thread starter macrumors 65816

    Clive At Five

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    #6
    Or door number three, not compromising my principles and voting for Bob Barr.

    No one said anything about not paying taxes, period. It's government-implemented social programs.

    whoa whoa whoa... are you saying that you can't give money to those causes on your own power??? You need government to do it for you?

    By the way, I do NOT support our decision to go to war in Iraq.

    -Clive
     
  7. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    tithing 10% is something from the old testament. just like stoning women to death if they cut their hair inappropriately. nowadays we give what we are called to give.
     
  8. j26 macrumors 65832

    j26

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Location:
    Paddyland
    #8
    Hold on.


    Wasn't the consitution imposed on people who voted against it, so therefore by your logic isn't the consitution unconstitutional?
     
  9. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #9
    I think you can make an argument (which I think very few sensible people will accept) that it is wrong for a government to engage in anything that could be considered charitable...

    But what you have said is that it is unconstitutional. Now you've changed the standard. Right and wrong might be ephemeral, but if you want to say something is unconstitutional, you ought to at least say what aspect of the constitution is violated by the general existence or principles of social programs.

    Or do I need to link a definition to "unconstitutional" as well?
     
  10. geese macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #10
    So... what are you asking for exactly? The right to opt out of paying taxes? Only paying a part of tax that you agree with?

    You can always move to Monaco or Dubai if you so resent paying taxes.
     
  11. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    Isn't the world a cruel place? :rolleyes:

    Poor Clive is forced to tithe.
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    Good luck with that.

    So basically you're worried that if the government uses your money to help poor people, they will be less dependent on religious organisations and the hold of said organisations on such people will lessen.
     
  13. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    I don't understand your argument, Clive At Five. If it's "forced" it isn't "charity". :confused:
     
  14. Clive At Five thread starter macrumors 65816

    Clive At Five

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    #14
    We don't live in a Democracy. Civics fail.

    Regardless, even if it's a majority, it's not ethically right to impose our beliefs on the other 5%. Just like the majority of people are heterosexual. Do we reserve the right to deny others the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy?
    No. It's ethically wrong.

    Exactly.

    -Clive
     
  15. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    You miss his point entirely.
     
  16. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #16
    Oh, ha ha haha! Thanks, that made me laugh really hard - over here on the eastern side of the Atlantic. :eek:

    Seriously though, you're trying to argue that you should be excempt from taxes, that you should be exempt from paying to society, because if you're not, you're "forced by society". Well, suck it up.
     
  17. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #17
    Which ones? Department of Defense? Department of Health and Human Services? NASA? Department of Homeland Security? Environmental Protection Agency?
     
  18. Clive At Five thread starter macrumors 65816

    Clive At Five

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    #18
    Did you read what I wrote? I said I DIDN'T tithe, but I give what I can. I don't feel forced to tithe, but I feel self-obligated to give more.

    Pardon? What in your mind has you painting me as a religious fanatic? I do NOT support religious organizations assimilating the targets of its charitable doings.

    Hyperbole much? Read on:

    I support the government providing a place where my success or failure is determined by MY choices, not on the success or failure of other people's choices. I'm willing to pay whatever it takes for the government to provide and protect that environment.

    You know what I mean. :rolleyes:

    -Clive
     
  19. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #19
    Why single out one tax payer-funded program, why not make all of them optional? What if I want the choice to not fund national defense, or roads, or public schools, or scientific research?

    When it comes to people who for one reason or another can't make a living on their own, you basically have three choices:

    1) Kill them
    2) Give them enough money to get by
    3) Put up with a crime rate that'll make your head spin

    Since #1 is inhumane and #3 is undesirable, #2 is the only viable option left.
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    God forbid we try to help others in need. What's with libertarians not giving a damn about anyone else :rolleyes:

    And I bet if you ever lose your job, you'll be begging the government for welfare, foodstamps and healthcare until you can get back on your own two feet.
     
  21. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #21

    So everything that happens to you — and by extension — that happens to others, is the result of a choice?
     
  22. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Your whole thread is about being 'forced' to give to 'charity' by the big nasty soon-to-be government. I made a little rhyme. Lighten up.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  24. geese macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #24
    Alright then - what part of government spending do you feel you shouldn't pay for?

    Specifics please.
     
  25. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #25

    Sorry, I don't, and I wasn't being sarcastic. Are you using the term "forced charity" as a euphemism for paying tax?
     

Share This Page