You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] logos_ethos 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I am all for locally provided welfare.

People are better at helping people, as opposed to impersonal government services. Impersonal government services (think state agencies that registers motor vehicles / DMVs) do not provide the same level of personal care. Modern welfare makes it easy to put distance between us and the homeless. "Why give money to charities when the government provides services" is the question that people ask themselves. Unfortunately, free money, goods, and services does not solve the mental side of things, which is why some stay on welfare.

Ideally, social charity will be within the community's Dunbar's number. This keeps the interaction going in both directions. The dialog between the homeless and community keeps the community apprised of social, economic, and other failures. Social structures keep both sides publicly accountable. But all of this goes away when you substitute this interaction with a distant government service office. Once you exceed the Dunbar's number, real help is replaced with the rhetoric of a politician seeking power. The politician has an incentive to keep a portion of the population dependent on government services.

If we were not under attack from foreign ideologies, then we would be able to talk about social cohesion. Social cohesion is important for a number of reasons, including charity. Because the USA is too strong to fight within a conventional military battle, the only viable method of attack is subversion from within. So any ideology that gives us strength is under attack. Because of how effective subversion works, just talking about these attacks, or anything that might benefit social cohesion causes ostracism due to moral rhetoric that protects the subversive process. Our inability to provide enough prosperity and welfare is an indirect casualty of subversion.