Does socialism destroy altruism?

Question

I dislike giving homeless people money (I do it anyway), because I feel that that's why we pay for government welfare. If there was no welfare, hence lower taxes, I think I would give more money, however. I've also heard that while Europe's governments give more foreign aid, our personal donations are significantly higher. So does government redistribution of wealth hurt personal charitable contributions? Would people as a whole give more or less if there was no welfare system in place?

Answer 1

In Socialism there would be no underclass who have to survive on charity, there would be no homelessness and no poverty. Socialism is by it's very nature altruistic as each receives according to their needs and gives according to their ability. Europe is not Socialist, but Social democratic - it has a welfare state and capitalism. The people who fall through the safety net are still reliant on charity and Yes Europeans continue to support them despite the welfare state. People charitable aid goes in different places some give to help the poor in their home nations, some abroad and some to research charities or animal welfare, the greater the state aid for the poor means less charity will be needed for them, but this is Good thing as it is the states responsibility to look after it's people. People would continue to give to the other charities

Answer 2

I think that from stats I've seen that there is indeed more charity in developed countries with small social safety nets.

But the real question is whether this increase in charity will fill the void left by govenmental non-involvement. That is, is the total welfare system plus charity greater or less in more social minded nations? Further, is the regularity or security of aid by altruistic individuals greater or less than that by altruistic societies (welfare). That might go to actual efficiency of the welfare/charity given.

Personally, I think a social welfare net is required, even though it likely will reduce the amount of charity given by individuals.

Peace

Answer 3

Socialism and altruism are separate issues. You hit it right on the head when you labeled it income redistribution. However, understand that the goal here is to break down our economic system so that it doesn't work anymore and causes a collapse of our democracy. Once that happens, marxists plan to take control using violence, institute slavery, genocide, mass starvation and poverty etc.......as they have done in EVERY single case without exception. They care NOTHING for those in need. The truly needy are left to starve while your cash is carefully used to increase the number of people in our culture who are violent, crack addicted psychopaths. This also serves their purpose.

These people have been quite successful in europe, which is why things are so BAD there. Particularly damaging has been the abuse of the immigration system there. They bring in dangerous, terrorist minded people and put them immediately on welfare. These people band together and force police and other aspects of government authority out of the neighborhood using violence. Then, they focus on expansion. They talk openly of overthrowing the government using terrorism. In france, this situation is VERY close to happening. Hundreds of cars are burned every day. Women are abducted off the street and gang raped by these people. Police who attempt to intervene in crime are attacked. If they actually succeed in arresting someone, mass rioting ensues. Most of europe is not far behind, I might add.

In the US, these people have not been too successful, although it is not for lack of trying. We had major welfare reform a few years back that put a real dent in their plans. Their main focus these days is immigration. Most people in this country have figured out what they are doing with the illegal immigration issue and we oppose them (it helps when these people, despite being 3% of our current population are a whopping 40% of our prison population....saying volumes about who is coming over here illegally). The bigger problem is getting others to understand that legal immigration is just as bad. Currently, we let in a million people a year. This is ten times the amount we let in during the previous most prolific immigration period...the great migration. Most thought we were letting insane amounts of people in, back then. And there were tremendous social problems that resulted. Today, the issue is ten times worse and still the forces that want to destroy us act as if we are stingy with immigration. They have sinister motives.

Anyway, none of this has to do with altruism in any legitimate fashion. Unlike europeans who actually leave the real needy to suck and die, people in the US care about them. That is unlikely to change. If the marxists ever have their way and ramp up income redistribution again, private giving will remain unchanged. The reason will be, NONE of that government money will find its way into the hands of those who truly need it.

Answer 4

Not at all. a good example of that was the Depression. The rich got richer and the poor literally starved to death. It still happens today, but it is measured better and the media is guided as to when and where to cover it. Altruism really isn't affected by the form of government actually. And the idea that need affects charitable giving is simply a mistaken theory. History has shown that time and again.

Answer 5

i'm uncertain you are able to assign a value to altruism, by skill of that I mean by skill of putting a value (i.e. it helps society as an entire) you distort the very nature of altruism (in spite of everything, i'm a factor of that society, so I share interior the advantages). It makes me contemplate whether altruism can face as much as scrutiny. do no longer we consistently have some reason for action? whether that reason is to do some thing 'altruistic' in hopes of it recuperating our character or compensating for a flaw? the only extremely altruistic action i will think of of is a random one, and there is not any longer something to intend that it can be a effective, or an intrinsically useful, one. it extremely is a great question.

Answer 6

In order for an act to be "moral" it has to be done of ones free will... hence the term, "free moral agent."

I cannot chose to give to people via public welfare. If I refuse to pay my taxes, they will take everything I have, and put me into jail. Therefore, I am not being "moral" when I "give" via public welfare, since I have no choice in the matter. Therefore, since "altruism" (which is an idea that doesn't exist in reality) depends on being moral, yes, altruism does suffer.

Second, poor people do not fund the huge charities of the world. It wasn't a poor person who endowed my college, nor a poor person who build my church buildings. If we are poor, then we cannot feed the poor, right? Being wealthy is a necessary, but not sufficient, ingredient to being charitable -- you must be wealthy enough to give, but you can be wealthy and not give!!

Third, a recent study here in the USA concluded that conservatives gave more money and time to charity than their liberal counterparts, in spite of the liberals claiming that they care more than the conservatives. Many liberals always figure that they don't have to give of their time and money since the government is supposed to do that work via their taxes! Again, we see public welfare being a killer to personal morality.

The Americans are the most generous people on earth. Heck, we even offer aid to our enemies when disaster strikes -- look at our aid to Iran after their last earthquake! Sadly, we are roundly condemned for being wealthy pigs, but of course, if we weren't wealthy, we couldn't give nearly as much.

Answer 7

I don't think altruism is at all related to the economic structure of a nation. In social-democratic nations where there is significantly less poverty, people have other causes to donate to. Further, when people are less worried about money, they have more time to give to almost any cause, whether this be third world poverty, sick kids' hospital, cancer research or the local rowing club.

Answer 8

People may be inclined to give more, out of pity, perhaps, but other than that Government redistribution of wealth wouldn't affect personal contributions much one way or the other. I think those are two separate issues.

Answer 9

I think the people out holding up those signs and the people living in cardboard boxes are mentally ill. I think a lot of them are veterans who fought for our country, the things the saw and the way they were treated made them sick in the head and I think its a crying shame that people treat them like they are bums,. they are the ones who gave us our freedom now they are resented and most unwanted .. It makes me sick to see people looking down on them. and they have big parties for "our troops' and welcome home troops but what about when they couldn't handle killing and get sick from it then they are forgotten. that's inhuman and we should all be ashamed! about welfare, don't you think if people could better themselves they would? they lack self worth and education. most of them don't even think they could work or go to school they were never 'wanted' by their parents. and the same people bitching about paying for welfare are the people crying out abortions are inhuman. what about that?!!! are you against abortion? I bet you are. well unwanted pregnancies lead to welfare recipients and criminals, yes adoption is an option but do you really think they will make it to a kindly family who will educate them and love them? I don't

Answer 10

You are 100% correct.
And private charities are one millions times more effective than government handouts.
Also, if their were no welfare system, contrary to popular belief, their would be lees poverty. Consequences force people to change their unproductive behavior. (school drop-outs, children they cannot afford, and on and on.)
.