"Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
2007-08-27 08:08:35 · 17 answers · asked by midnight&moonlight'smom 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sorry, I don't think I can contact FDR to rephrase it.
I know WHY people agree or disagree with that statement. I was wondering how many agree or disagree.
2007-08-27 08:42:19 · update #1
ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!!
Very smart girl!
2007-08-27 08:17:04 · answer #1 · answered by rumbler_12 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Disagree.
A government that lives in the spirit of charity will be doomed to failure as will a government that is frozen in indifference. The two are not necessarily opposite to each other. There is a great difference between charity and a maternal / paternal government. Either way you will become a slave to it. Govt doesn't have to be indifferent but it should not be the controlling factor of your life. You should be free to make choices and not be beholding to the govt for giving you those choices. For example - the money in your pocket - that you earned at work. Is it yours or the govt's? The govt says its theirs and they prove it by trying to take every bit of it away from you through direct or indirect taxation. You have to prove every bit of belongs to you. You pay income taxes on what you earn. From what is left, you may buy things which are again taxed. Should the value of what you bought increase then you owe more taxes on it should you sell it. Lets say that you can save a little of it then you are taxed on anything that may grow in value but it is also eaten at by inflation which is also a sort of tax as it is the result of the govt's action. Where did the money that you earned go? Was it to pay for all the govt programs to help the needy. Not likely, for the most part it went to pay off govt contractors that are friends of the politicians that decide what to do with your money. Govt should not be a tool with which to do things good or bad. It should just be a framework to take care some basic needs for the majority of people in its jurisdiction and then leave them alone for everything else as long as they don't hurt anyone else in which case pounce on them.
2007-08-27 15:24:56 · answer #2 · answered by John Galt 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Government : from the root word govern, meaning to control, restrain, oppress.
By definition, there is no room for and can never be a "spirit of charity" in government.
Your quote should read : "Better the occasional faults of oppression than the consistent omissions of freedom". Nobody should agree with that.
2007-08-27 15:21:06 · answer #3 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I cannot disagree more. A few days ago I saw this quote psoted on an answer which states my position quite succinctly.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C.S. Lewis
Excesses of government only hurt the people, never help thsm.
2007-08-27 18:28:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Agree
2007-08-27 15:22:33 · answer #5 · answered by El Duderino 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That was by Franklin D Roosevelt right? I disagree. That charity costs me tax dollars that I could spend a whole lot better than lining the government's pockets while maybe a quarter of my money makes it to "help" others.
2007-08-27 15:19:26 · answer #6 · answered by Jasmine 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
To a point, as there is no charity given out by government....the politicos are not handing things out for free by paying only out of their pockets.
2007-08-27 15:17:13 · answer #7 · answered by Zombie Birdhouse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoa, some scary responses.
I agree with the statement.
2007-08-28 06:39:57 · answer #8 · answered by angelpuppyeyes 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This statement I am sure aptly describes what we have been experiencing for the past 7 years.
2007-08-27 15:16:32 · answer #9 · answered by Dream Realized 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely, although its a pointless statement. Politics is inherently corrupt; self-interest is far too great a barrier to be overcome with raw altruism.
2007-08-27 15:16:31 · answer #10 · answered by Shane B 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sounds much nicer than "better to let them die from benign neglect than to steal the bread from my children to feed them."
2007-08-27 15:17:02 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋