The elected government has the responsibility to look after our society. Charities eleviate that responibility. Why should abused children, the blind, etc depend on donations. The needy are being let down by the government that is supposed to protect them. Cash donations is not the answer.
2006-10-11 04:34:56 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
By your very answer Leogirl08 '...you have the responsibility to look after yourself', shows what type of person you are 'selfish'. Banning charites would be in your agenda. Of course it's the governments responibility to look after its people, why do you think we vote them in, freebee hoildays or what?
2006-10-11 04:44:18 · update #1
Lita, laws are made to prevent those types of atrocities from happening. Don't get me wrong, it grieves me deeply when I hear and see these type of things, but donating cash is not the answer. More pressure should be put on the governing bodies so that there is no need to fret on whether Bernados is going to survive the next financial year. It's the governments job to ensure it's people are looked after.
2006-10-11 05:11:38 · update #2
One of the countries largest charities - I think it comes number 2 after the National Trust, but could be wrong - is the RNLI.
They have been offered the opportunity to be Government-run many times and to some it seems quite logical that it should.
However, being a charity allows it total independence. It controls its own budget and manages its resources without the interference of any elected individuals. It is completely outside the sphere of influence of government and never suffers from government cutbacks.
The same applies to all other charities. The theory that the government is responsible for society is a non-starter anyway. Is it responsible for our pets? Aid to Chernobyl children? Running Village Halls? The Boy Scouts?
If you go to the Charity Commission's website and see just how diverse charities are, you will see that, if the Government controlled all of them, it would have no time whatsoever to run the services they do run now.
Finally, would you really want cancer research, guide dogs for the blind, etc etc etc, run by Government Ministers and Civil Service bureaucrats? Have just one look at the Health Service and Education in the UK.
There is only one answer.
2006-10-11 05:32:46 · answer #1 · answered by Essex Ron 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Aren't there enough spongers on the state already? Charities also have a vested interest in not resolving the problem they were set up to resolve. Too many jobs at stake. I am not saying that you don't have a case regarding the GENUINE needy, but there are so many people just waiting to jump onto the bandwagon. It is worth remembering that the government doesn't have any money. If you ban charities, the money they collected would have to be collected from us by the government in the form of increased taxation. I also wonder what you mean by, "governments are elected to look after our society". I think our first responsibility is to look after ourselves, to the extent that we are reasonably able to. Perhaps if we got rid of all the spongers then maybe we could afford to look after those in genuine need. But it would still need funding by the public. I also don't think that it is true that the groups you have mentioned have to rely on charitable handouts.
2006-10-11 12:27:32 · answer #2 · answered by Veritas 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are right. It is the responsibility of any civilised society to support those within that society that are less able. These organisations should not have to rely on a small minority to keep their good work going.
2006-10-12 03:15:22 · answer #3 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
dear my friends, on the inter net i have good news for you the things that you are doing for other people it good to be sharing things with other people when one hand must wash another some times other people do not have food to eat nor not even clothes to wear so if you have it don't be up right with it give it away and you now what comes back to you and also you will be getting blessings from god so be thank full onto him praise his name.that is all i have to say by
2006-10-11 12:00:44 · answer #4 · answered by carl jay 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Have you lost you mind? Who the hell says the government has the responsibility to look after our society? You have a responsibility to look after yourself. What are you retarded or something? Maybe you need to be in a home where they can watch you 24/7. Take your ridiculous socialist agenda and shove it where the sun don't shine.
2006-10-11 11:38:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
YES! In my town you are bombarded with the clipboarded folk trying to get you to sign up to charities...i told one i dont believe donations are right (for those reasons) and he thought i was just being mean....government should do more!!!!!!!!
2006-10-11 11:41:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The lottery should be limited to 1 million for the winner, not 8 million or whatever it is. The rest should go to the homeless, abused kids, blind etc...
Also, the queeen should sell some of her assetts and our homeless situation would be solved overnight.
This country is run by the rich for the rich!
2006-10-11 11:38:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
so your saying that kids who get beat by their parents or women who are raped,etc should not depend on people you DONT have to donate but some people like helping others out they are the true honest good people!
2006-10-11 11:45:56 · answer #8 · answered by lita 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think that we should fingure out how to get them jobs and stuff so they're not dependant on us, and can survive without us, btu not to ban charities altogether
2006-10-12 07:50:22 · answer #9 · answered by som1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So, should we raise our taxes anymore and be forced to "donate"?
2006-10-11 11:37:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋