You can send money to the Catholic Worker Movement. They work with the very poor and homeless. — Bitter Crank

They work with them or they work on them?
From what I have seen of those people they probably spend more time fucking them than feeding them.

And I have nothing against the catholic people, it is the goddamned church I cannot stand.

Not everyone is dishonest, but not everyone has a valid reason to be asking for money from strangers. — Sir2u

Give generously when you can and when, by one's best judgement, the gift will be well used. (When I give a man on the street a dollar, I assume there is a good chance he will buy beer and not invest it in growth stock. Were I in his shoes, I'd buy beer for sure.)

Making our personal sphere of interaction and interest would , as some pointed out, do little or no good. The fact is that there should be no asking for money. A functioning society would take care of its own as a society not as individuals. — Sir2u

Agreed. What kind of society would that look like, politically?

Sometimes they help, if structured right. I'm an example. — Relativist

Yes, and I'm another, and there are plenty more, so what he said is evidently wrong, or misleading at best.

Handouts from the government do not solve the problems.
— Sir2u
Sometimes they help, if structured right. I'm an example. — Relativist

Same here. Although, I'm not furthering my life anymore. Kinda gave up on that.

So, I'm wondering if all this can be said to be an argument for more socialism or social democracy?

I don't like seeing homeless people, and if more welfare would change that for the better, then by all means.

To be honest, I am not sure if there is anything we need to do. — Sir2u

The fact is that there should be no [one] asking for money. A functioning society would take care of its own as a society, not as individuals. — Sir2u

How can you reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements?

On an individual level? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like gloaming said, we naturally have closer relationships with those whom we know best, interact with most often, and most intimately. We trust them more than others, care for them more than others, are more connected. Although, again, I'm sure you already know this. As an individual, I am no different than most others in this respect. I would give my own mother preferential treatment over a stranger on that basis. — Sapientia

So, what can be done to enlarge one's sphere of interest then? Seemingly, if more people on an individual level cared about others then the problem would eventually get solves, no?

Are you familiar with the Catholic Worker Movement? The woman who started it, Dorothy Day, was first a socialist journalist in New York; her daughter, Tamara, was born out of wedlock. She never married. She eventually became a devote Catholic, but had a lot of conflict with the church. Peter Maurin, her mentor and co-founder, was a very off-beat character.

Catholic Workers is around...90 years old. They're old enough to have had some significant failures. In general though, they aren't part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and they attract Catholic and non-catholic volunteers.

There are various people doing various kinds of legitimate good work who can use a donation.

that sounded pretty brutal. — Aleksander Kvam

Life is hard.

There is. How can you be satisfied with things as they are? — Sapientia

Why do I need to widen my sphere of interest? Maybe you situation is better than mine, but I have little to spare and I see no reason to go without so that someone that asks me for money should be obliged.
As I have already stated, I do try to help when it is possible. But why should I go out of my way to do so?

Is this your version of utopia? I hope not. — Sapientia

What is the "this" that you refer to?

But that's anecdotal evidence, so a relatively weak point. And it contradicts my own anecdotal evidence, which effectively means they cancel each other out. — Sapientia

Do you honestly expect me or anyone else to provide any other kind of evidence. I am not even sure it could be called evidence because it is not used to prove any point. But we all know that you use non standard definitions most of the time, so I will just ignore it.

I actually find yours hard to believe, — Sapientia

Who gives a shit what you believe.

which makes me suspect that we're interpreting "the extent that they are able" differently. Maybe your mean instead something more like "the extent that they can live with". — Sapientia

Or maybe you don't understand what I said?

When the situation calls for it, yes. If there were a deadly virus which would wipe out the rest of humanity, and you could easily prevent it, wouldn't you feel obligated to do so? — Sapientia

We were talking about the man asking for money, not some stupid situation invent by a third rate scifi writer.

So tell us, when was the last time you forked out a fiver for some old codger that could not even walk to the corner shop to buy food?

Agreed. What kind of society would that look like, politically? — Posty McPostface

Hang on a minute while I get my crystal ball. Sorry, not even that helps. No idea then. :chin:

So, what can be done to enlarge one's sphere of interest then? Seemingly, if more people on an individual level cared about others then the problem would eventually get solves, no? — Posty McPostface

when you give money. you dont see the effect it does when it has arrived. so your not investing in anything(and im not talking about money). you literarly woundent know if it "got lost" on the way, or if in the end it was all for nothing. one theory I guess, true or not, who knows..

Give generously when you can and when, by one's best judgement, the gift will be well used. (When I give a man on the street a dollar, I assume there is a good chance he will buy beer and not invest it in growth stock. Were I in his shoes, I'd buy beer for sure. — Bitter Crank

Best plan, work one on one. Nobody can do things for everyone so why try?

Hang on a minute while I get my crystal ball. Sorry, not even that helps. No idea then. :chin: — Sir2u

I think it's socialism? No? At the very highest of peaks, it's communism, no?

So, what can be done to enlarge one's sphere of interest then? Seemingly, if more people on an individual level cared about others then the problem would eventually get solved, no? — Posty McPostface

Maybe. But that seems too simplistic. You could write a book on this topic. To get people to enlarge their spheres of interest, you'd have to persuade them to do so in some way, and that's where political parties, the media, literature on the subject, discussion forums such as this, people you associate with, and so on, come in to the equation.

when you give money. you dont see the effect it does when it has arrived. so your not investing in anything(and im not talking about money). you literarly woundent know if it "got lost" on the way, or if in the end it was all for nothing. one theory I guess, true or not, who knows.. — Aleksander Kvam

I once gave out some cigarettes to homeless people. Seeing the happiness on their faces, really struck me as a profound feeling of happiness on my own deed. Even if it was just cigarettes.

Maybe. But that seems too simplistic. You could write a book on this topic. To get people to enlarge their spheres of interest, you'd have to persuade them to do so in some way, and that's where political parties, the media, literature on the subject, discussion forums such this, and people you associate with, come in to the equation. — Sapientia

Well, you gotta start somewhere. And, I think that enlarging one's sphere of interest is a good thing. Seemingly people do agree with this from what posts I gather, perhaps exempt Sir2u.

I once gave out some cigarettes to homeless people. Seeing the happiness on their faces, really struck me as a profound feeling of happiness on my own deed. Even if it was just cigarettes. — Posty McPostface

I have done that to, but it dosent give me any satasfaxion....

How can you reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements? — Sapientia

In what way do they contradict each other.

I just hope that it allways will be a chooice

I don't like seeing homeless people, and if more welfare would change that for the better, then by all means. — Posty McPostface

Is it morally correct to take more money of the people that work to give to the ones that don't?

LOL! The help I received enabled me to go to college and get a well-paying job and pay lots of taxes over the course of my erstwhile career.

I have done that to, but it dosent give me any satasfaxion.... — Aleksander Kvam

Well, the profoundness of the feeling, originated from seeing someone else be happy from my own deed. What do you think about seeing people as happy from something you did?

All too often, we think that homeless people are just scrounging for another fix or alcohol; but, that's not entirely true. The deeper issue is mental health, and no amount of goodwill or deed from an individual can fix that. Hence, socialism?

"Well, the profoundness of the feeling, originated from seeing someone else be happy from my own deed. What do you think about seeing people as happy from something you did?"

now your starting to sound like me therapist :)

Is it morally correct to take more money of the people that work to give to the ones that don't? — Sir2u

Given a utilitarian rationale, yes. If the money is spent on bettering the lives of other people, instead of starting wars or such.

Are you familiar with the Catholic Worker Movement? — Bitter Crank

No, I have not heard of them before. After looking at their webpage, I find it incredible that all of their branches are in developed counties. Maybe that is why they manage to do some good. I don't know if they work in the third world countries but if they do they are probably not have much success.

starving children dosent want the bible, they want water, leave the bible at home.

I think it's socialism? No? At the very highest of peaks, it's communism, no? — Posty McPostface

And there is the problem with putting political names on things. Everyone automatically looks under their bed.
Both of those systems have been proven to not work well, one more than the other obviously.

Would a functioning society have to fit into one of the niches that have been around for so long?

Agreed. What kind of society would that look like, politically? — Posty McPostface

The United States has had several episodes where it legislated and funded programs to reduce raw need. The Medicare and Medicaid programs are two such programs, both passed in the mid-1960s. Food Stamps (not the official name any more) is another. Disability, social security, unemployment, and general and specific welfare programs (like the discontinued Aid For Dependent Children - AFDC) all did that. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has built millions of apartments across the country to house the elderly and disabled.

Unfortunately, the US has a mediocre record of maintaining these programs and keeping them fully funded.

The European social democratic model is a better example of what a society looks like that assumes the responsibility of caring for people. Taxes are high, and the social programs are generous and both general and focussed. For instance, France allocates funds to provide prenatal care to pregnant women. This is as much as a social investment in healthy children as it is a personal help.

Most western European governments do a pretty good job of assuring a minimum level of security, cradle to grave. Perfect? No. Better? Yes.

The critical difference between societies that provide social security (as a generalized condition, not as a program) collect far more in taxes from individuals and corporations than the United States does. My understanding is that most countries do a better job of distributing benefits to citizens evenly across the board. Southern US states generally are niggardly and pay out benefits well below the average of Northern states.

These societies do "look different" because they have significantly different histories. Social programs in the US are never going to resemble those in Sweden.

The US has the continued problem of highly disproportionate taxation benefit. One of the reasons the 1% of US citizens are so rich is tax law. Tax law can and should be changed, but it takes a strong popular liberal commitment and liberal control of congress and the white house to achieve it.