Give and Take2

Taking from the successful/wealthy to enforce collective brotherhood and charity is not freedom, or individual benevolence. and.. It isn't beneficial... in this case we are effectively taking something because a third party "decided" that it is best for all.. that collective view is the failure pt.

Individuals must choose to give freely not out of coercion or mandate by a ruling institution.

Collective taking from some to give to others removes free will, and plants the seeds of demise at the very core of "intentions for the greater good.  Even if the some are wealthy and corrupt, the action of stealing from them only further corrupts the "taker" and infuriates the "giver"

These thoughts began with GIVE AND TAKE "post #1" last year.. 

Comments

D. Toole said…
You recently posted a link to this article, so I'm only now reading it.

The assumption behind the post is troubling - or maybe I'm wrong about it - but it seems that the underlying assumption is that the people receiving any sort of public assistance are not honorable, but fraudulent, not needy, but greedy.

That is a commonplace feeling, particularly among people who have never worked with the poor. There IS fraud in any program that cares for those who can't care for themselves. But there are people who need such safety-net programs - who HONESTLY need them.

Is your solution charity? Are their countries where you have seen this work? How do you think this might be achieved?
Jeff Prillaman said…
People receiving the aid are not addressed... everyone wants to help the needy.. redistribution by force of gov't is what this post is focused on..

the post addresses that taking from one to give 2 another in a collective model ultimately corrupts both the individual giver and the receiver... SBC's cooperative program is a perfect example. It has corrupted the mission.. removing the benevolence and the missions to an "outsourcing" model.. write a check and say a prayer for the people on the monthly calendar.. then your obligation is met.. the results and loss of missional focus in majority of churches is inescapable.

there is no scenario where personal, individual obligation to service can be missed. it cannot be enforced by some governing board/body on all...

we all have same intention... to do good.. but the source of the funds, service, etc.. matters

charity is mandated in the gospels, but not collectivist charity.. in my view charity must be freely given, out of love...

Popular posts from this blog

Loss of a Giant

NFL protests America