In order to productively debate, one must understand the thought process, or mind set, of their counterpart. Without this understanding the debate simply devolves into name calling, which only appeals to the lowest common denominator of a constituency and easily identifies the name caller as being intellectually bankrupt. I have long tried to analyze my friends on “The Left” to understand what drives their thought process. My use of the term “friends” is not in any way facetious, as I do not correlate a person’s political philosophy with their character. Quite to the contrary, I have found that many of my friends on the left are drawn to their political view through legitimate altruistic care and concern for others. I merely feel that their care and concern develops into support for misguided policies fraught with unintended consequences.
I have come to this understanding by noticing that most political disagreements usually can be filtered down to a differing of opinion over a concept that I refer to as legislative philanthropy. This is a preference for government provision of assistance through the establishment of taxpayer funded government controlled programs. One’s view of the role of government is the fundamental point of this argument. Where I view the essential role of government as protecting The Constitution and the life, liberty and property of each and every individual, others believe the government’s charge goes beyond that mandate.
At some point in our history, it became accepted that philanthropy was a function of the government, rather than privately funded and operated foundations or entities. What some view as government controlled philanthropy, I view as theft and an abuse of power. Should philanthropy be conducted through private entities that operate under the law using elective private contributions? Should philanthropy be conducted through government entities using mandated taxes for funding and be overseen by politicians who are subsequently subject to the electorate? This raises what are fundamentally the same concerns on both sides of the argument
Although private philanthropy is more effective, efficient and directly accountable to its funding, many fear that distribution of benefits will result in some type of reversion to indentured servitude. In the case of religious organizations, many fear that those receiving benefits will be unduly influenced by the religious philosophy of that body. The fear is that philanthropy is not purely altruistic, or fair, and that there is too great of a potential to exert influence through the provision of charity.
Critics of government philanthropy will state that its bureaucracies are inherently wasteful and inefficient. The fear is that it also has the potential to create obligation or indentured servitude to the political ideology of the benefactor. Many take the position that legislative philanthropy has created our current “Nanny State” that has extended this paternal control and dependence over multiple generations. Even more dangerous is that this ideology has also created a mutually dependent relationship that has changed philanthropy to entitlement, and has by definition changed our governmental and economic systems.
The arguments are very similar. Understanding the basis of each position is fundamental to meaningful debate..
