Now if more people in the world would look beyond self and see the bigger picture.
The necessary implication that folks who disagree with you about how to go about helping others in need means they only think of themselves is insulting and wrong.
Thing is, some tar themselves with that brush, by their own words and simply by refusing to participate in life outside their own egos, wants, needs and desires.
I'm pretty sure Daiwa's point was that just because he doesn't believe that it is the *role of government* to provide for the poor (chronic or otherwise isn't totally clear) doesn't mean that he is totally unsympathetic to their plight nor does it necessarily imply that he is in any way *personally* selfish or uncharitable.
All he is saying is that it's not the role of government but the role of private charity. In other words he's fine with giving of his own choice to help other people but simply objects to being forced to do so. There is certainly some validity to his point.
On the other hand one should be able to express their opinion which is what I'm certain all Starker’s intent was without it being taken as some kind of implicit insult.
I would like to address both the argument that this should be the role of charity *and* the idea of being *forced* to do something by the government. First off charity is all fine and good. But there are two major problems with depending on charity alone. The first one is that charity alone isn't always enough and then what? The second part is that generally to receive charity one must essentially beg. I personally find this somewhat objectionable although there is something to be said for the idea that the rich can afford pride but it's just too expensive for the poor.
Basically I take certain things to be an intrinsic *right*. In a country where CEO's get 100 million dollar (yearly!) bonuses I do believe that certain things should simply be not allowed to exist. In this category I put things that I consider to be a want for the basic necessities of life. I certainly include health care as part of this bundle of basic necessities as a right.
I don't believe that someone should be forced to beg for a *right*. So while charity is fine as far as it goes. It doesn't go far enough in its ability to supply the basic necessities to all that need it and it does require people to get on their knees and beg.
The second idea is the idea of being *forced* to do something by the government and I am no different than anyone else in this regard. I don't like being told what to do any more than anyone else however to me the scale makes a big difference. Some people seem to be taking the principle to the extreme.
Like I mentioned before, who in their right mind would choose to go to jail rather than pay a tax penalty of $675. I mean get real here. If it was $675,000 then that's a different matter. Dependent on your means perhaps even $6,750 might be a different matter. But I guarantee you there is no person in this country to whom going to jail is preferable to paying $675. It really is a matter of degree. Stuff this principle crap, there is a difference between penny wise and pound foolish and that's what I think people are being.
I view taxes in the same manner. The way I see it is that taxes are the price of living in a civilized society. Without a civilized society anyone or any group that was stronger than you could take everything you own including your life at any moment.
Therefore *everything* you have or will ever have in the future is dependent on living in a civilized society. If that civilized society decides by whatever means it makes such decisions that they need to take some portion of what you have for it's own maintenance then you have no complaint whatsoever as long as you're left with at least the basic necessities of life, since remember without civilized society you would in fact have nothing.
Like I said someone that makes anywhere near what I make or more has no legitimate complaint about how much they pay in taxes. Those with the legitimate compliant are far closer to being without the basic necessities of life than anyone in my tax bracket. And that is *fact*, not just my opinion. Everyone complains about taxes, there's nothing more American than that. But taxes have never come close to making a rich person poor. At the very most all taxes at the high end do is to make a rich person slightly less rich. Boo Hoo Hoo! Actually not even that. The most taxes at the high end do is to slow the rate at which the rich get even richer. Boo Hoo Hoo squared!!
Finally, while I will rail against what I call the "politics of greed and selfishness". I really am simply expressing my own opinion and I feel that I have a right to express that opinion without someone automatically assuming that by doing so I am somehow implying that someone else that disagrees with me is *personally* selfish and greedy. I'd like to think I can rail against what I see as *collective* selfishness and greed without someone always *assuming* that I'm applying this to them *personally*.