A few days ago I came across this story, "Church Ordered to Stop Giving Away Free Water," which describes a church that was engaging in charity, only to be stopped by none other than the government. According to the story, the church was given a cease and desist order for handing out bottles of water and coffee during the Mardi Gras parade route. Why? Well, the article explains that "The church volunteers were cited for failing to secure an occupational license and for failure to register for a sales tax." A question that instantly came to mind was if the church was not selling anything, why the hell would they need to register for a sales tax?!?! It makes absolutely no sense.
But that's besides the larger point. What is even more aggravating, looking at the fundamental principles that are at play here, is the fact that the government has a total disregard for morality. Charity is something that is done voluntarily. The church in this case acted upon its own judgement and decided that they wanted to contribute to their community by providing drinks for people marching in the parade. That is their right! The act of giving charity is moral because it is a voluntary action that does not violate the rights of others. It's odd that the government would require someone to acquire a permit for such a transaction when the government's idea of helping people is initiating force against its citizens (and thus violating their rights), in order to redistribute wealth to those people and causes it decides are worthwhile. And it does so on quite a large scale. Aside from stealing from productive members of society to give to those who are in need (via coercive income taxation funneled to welfare programs), the government forces people to provide welfare to other nations (foreign aid) and corporations that we may not necessarily support, and even worse, in some cases the money is wasted (i.e. Solyndra). To put it simply, the way the government does business is mind-thwarting, as it replaces each individuals rational judgment with the judgement of bureaucrats who feel they know better.
You know America is in a moral crisis when "We the People" need permission from the government to help our fellow man. I cannot think of anything more disgusting than having to ask an entity guilty of actively initiating force against me on a daily basis for permission to deal with others voluntarily. We have officially entered the twilight zone!
This very topic reminds me of a great quote from Penn Jillette:
In closing, I only have one thing to say to the government when it comes to the charity I choose to engage in: IT'S NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS!
"And the fact that charity is done voluntarily makes it moral (remember, the objective moral standard here is a respect for individual rights)."
ReplyDeleteWhat?? It's certainly not true that if an act is performed voluntarily, it is morally permissible or morally required. (I could be tripped up by your using the word "moral" like this, however).
You are applying what I said specifically about charity to a general act. Perhaps I should have said, "Charity is moral because it is done voluntarily."
ReplyDeleteNow it's clarified. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It definitely could be easily misinterpreted.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. But you still seem to think what what makes an act of charity moral (whatever that means) is that it is performed voluntarily.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do, so long as that voluntary action is governed by objective moral law (which I alluded to as being based on individual rights).
ReplyDeleteSo, charity is moral (whatever that means) because it is voluntary and it is moral? I'm not trying to trip you up, it just sounded like a nutty claim, so I was wondering what you had in mind. It's certainly not true (by your lights too, I'm fairly sure) that an act is moral just in case it is voluntary. If that were true, almost every act ever performed would be moral. Now it sounds like what you're saying is that as long as an act is moral, its being performed voluntarily makes it moral. Again, just wondering what you're really thinking.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is that any action that does not infringe on the rights of others is morally acceptable. In the specific case of charity, since it is voluntarily given, it's moral. No force or violation of rights is involved. Juxtapose that with the government's use of force when it comes to taxation. It's quite evident when it comes to private charity vs. government taxation to bring about some desired social goal, which side morality is on. It all comes down to freedom vs. force. I do not accept that the initiation of force in any circumstance is necessary or moral.
ReplyDeleteLook, you're just stating two different criteria of moral acceptability: voluntariness and not-rights-infringing (which feels like it might just be another way of putting being morally acceptable). "In the specific case of charity, since it is voluntarily given, it's moral". This is just the same claim again. I have a suspicion now that you might actually not mean this, but it's hard to track down what you might actually mean... Maybe you're thinking is focused on the side of *receiving* charity, and somehow you're carrying the thought that it's morally acceptable for a person to *accept* this charity (in part, of course) because of its voluntariness, and just carrying that over to the act of charity (for which the same certainly does not hold).
ReplyDeleteNo, I am specifically referring to giving charity. The fact that it is both voluntary and non-rights infringing makes it moral. You can have voluntary action that is rights infringing (i.e. hiring a hitman). That is why I also said that voluntary action must be governed by objective moral law (individual rights) in order for it to be moral. Does that clarify it better?
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, the "hitman" example was poor because I introduced a third party into the transaction and left out the result (the murder of the other person, which would be involuntary) which would make the action immoral. Can you provide an example of when voluntary action between parties would be rights infringing?
ReplyDeleteAnd to further clarify, I am specifically speaking about the relationship between the charity giver and the charity receiver. Since no force was involved in the transaction, it is morally acceptable.
The hitman example is a voluntary action, right?. It's not voluntary to be killed, of course, but that doesn't infect the act performed. There isn't action-between-parties, I think... There are transactions, which might be a sort of composite of two actions, but murder is just an action, which is wrong, of course, but voluntary. (It's also likely that every ACT is voluntary-- a probable requirement on some behavior's being an ACTION is that it be intended somehow).
ReplyDeleteSaying that what's important is the rights of the affected parties of an action is also fine and good, but it seems not to give a criterion of moral permissibility, since that (especially for you) might just BE what moral permissibility is. I can make that clearer, but it requires being pedantic, so I'll await a request to be pedantic. ;)
As I alluded to prior, even though the hiring of the hitman was voluntary, you have to consider the *purpose* of the hitman- to carry out murder (an involuntary action forced upon the victim). The entire point of this scenario is to violate one's right to life. The relationship between the person hiring the hitman and the hitman himself can be entirely voluntary and moral until the gun comes out. As Ayn Rand once said, "Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." The fact that the person ordering a hit decided to hire a third party instead of doing it himself makes the resulting act (the murder) no more moral. I think you'd agree that there can be no right to murder by either an individual or a group of people no matter how large the group may be.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the main point of this post was to point out the two alternatives when it comes to providing for a community. It's either voluntary charity or it's forced upon the people. I think you'd also agree that *initiating* force against people is wrong. A purpose of this post was to point out the irony of a government requiring a permit to deal with others *voluntarily* when the government itself deals with others through the immoral use of force everyday. Crazy, right?!