Melbourne Philosopher Neil Levy put it nicely:

"Most people think that philanthropy, the donation of money to charities, is in need of no justification. I argue that this is not the case. I examine the arguments which are, or might be, advanced in favor of philanthropy, and show that they are less decisive than is usually thought. I then sketch a moral argument against certain kinds of philanthropic activity: those which aim to provide essential services to our fellow citizens. In these cases, I argue, large scale philanthropic activity carries with it serious risks, of changing the balance of funding from the public to the private sector, thereby exposing those most in need to the vicissitudes of the market. To the extent that private funding of essential services becomes the norm, the vulnerable become the recipients of (at best) uncertain aid, which is liable to fluctuations and constant reduction. Essential services should be provided to the needy as a right, not as a favor, and these services are most appropriately delivered by government."

Charity is uncertain aid. I will only support a rights based welfare system.

Private philanthropy is the excuse governments use to devolve their responsibilities. I agree with Strayan charity is not a an effective alternative for welfare and should not be used in place of welfare. Charity is inefficient as it takes great resources to seek out and much is bled through the administration process. A charity delivery system is also always under siege by market forces and resource capabilities of the recieving end.

As an example I will use the senario of a disaster such as drought in a foreign country. A government can transfer funds to the afflicted nation or to the U.N who can professionally and quickly administer aid over a protracted time frame. A charity has to get people in the source country to do its work which maybe reliant on the suffering community,or it may have to use resources to get somebody out there. It has to collect and process the funds, pay all sorts of middle men and buy resources at any price offered. This sort of thing happens on a smaller scale in Australia where small charities are inefficiently left to deal with social problems and despite the few dollars they scrounge here and there in their tins more is wasted on telemarketers , mail outs ect when in the end their very existence is dependent on public grants.

I agree with strayan too, banged the nail on the head. Politics too often attacks welfare, cuts it, kicks it around, only to find that the consequence of this is throwing more money around to fix up the damage in a vicious cycle. It makes more economic sense to have efficient welfare systems without sloppy improvisations and overzealous welfare police.

They employ too many fat cats just to clean up the mess caused by so called "cut-backs". It is a waste of money and it is morally corrupt.

The charities are good for non essential causes, excellently put. Essential causes are the responsibility of Good management in Good Government, left right or indifferent.

Another interesting chapter David is the Book of Kings and the Story of Elijah and the Widdow. It was a test of humility. Elijah passed the test and so did the foreigners, in hospitality and tollerance, and the grain turned to harvest, oil returned, and rain returned after the drought. The book of Kings gives as some de-ja-vois. (spelt right?)

Blessings to you all.

I am reminded of George Orwell's account of Salvation Army run lodging houses in "Down and out in Paris and London". Orwell remarked that "the Salvation Army are so in the habit of thinking themselves a charitable body that they cannot even run a lodging-house without making it stink of charity."

A sizeable extract from this striking book is available here: http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/DownandOut/downandout_29.html Read it and tell me you don't find Orwell's comments as relevant today as they were in the 1930s.

I think you will find that much of the success of the Hezbollah in South Labanon is due to their acts of charity helping the disadvantaged. Compassion for the poor isn't only limited to the followers of Jesus.

Philanthropy is another story. The rich often engage in philanthropy just for taxation purposes or the kudos they receive. It has nothing to do with charity. Real charity involves the giver making a sacrifice, whether in time or money, for no return.

Here is the nub of the article

“Secular progressives who placed their faith in historical evolution towards a socialist future, have been demoralised by the recent successes of global capitalism. Today, it is the right, not the left, that seems to have history on its side.”

Translated is history has observed that it is capitalism which is the generating system for wealth. Fetter or deny it and the ensuing collapse merely ensure greater poverty, as we see every time a socialist gains power, all great and noble intentions and speeches about the nobility of labour accompanied by an economic incompetence which leads to less wealth for all, not only the “wealthy”.

AS for Nobles-oblige. Compassion and charity can only be delivered by individuals, socialism does not embrace charity or compassion, economic leveling reduces the gap between rich and poor by ensuring the rish are no longer rich and the poor are poorer because the rich have less disposable income to indulge themselves in the products from the factories which employ the poor.

Dearest Margaret Famously said

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state”

She here state what the author wrote – that “socialism” is a dead horse incapable of pulling the cart of state toward any destination. History has shown the failure of communism, failure of nationalized industry and failure of accountability in government sponsored welfare programmes.

Today it is the right, not the left, that not only seems to but certainly has, history on its side.

We (the right) always knew it, the idealist of the secular progressive were / are tossers who, like too many gullible folk, bought into the small minded, self righteous, envy politics of socialism and a misguided belief that by disabling the competent and capable, you improve the lot of the incompetent and incapable.