Sunday 19 June 2011

The Nationalisation Of Charity

One of the arguments against libertarianism is that, without the state, the poor would go hungry.

It kinda gets blown away when we see state action to deny homeless people food freely given by non-profit organisations. Like this, for example.

That footage is from Orlando, Florida, just a few days ago.

They have a rule there, you see, which prohibits the giving of food to more than 25 people within a two mile radius of City Hall. This would include just setting up a food stall and handing it out for free to anyone who can't afford it, like the homeless kids in the video. And the city is spending a lot of money defending their stance in court.

The reason given is the lack of a state-sanctioned licence (I've written about the all-encompassing restrictions on liberty such measures entail before). You'd think they would be pleased to see others shouldering a burden which the state usually quotes as an expense they would rather do without, wouldn't you? Not in this case, though, and I'm pretty sure the licence excuse is just that. A convenient excuse.

It's worth pointing out - before you begin thinking Orlando is too far away to care about - that the same is planned for Westminster, and even in the think-of-the-poor progressive paradise of Brighton there have been rumblings.

There are voices in the local council who really don't like what we do, suggesting it attracts the homeless and makes Brighton more "homeless friendly", others have said "food for free" encourages a degree of fecklessness, others just object to the possibility of "litter".
In the US, San Francisco - YES, even caring, right on, bleeding-heart San Francisco - is amongst a host of cities who would gladly see the homeless rot rather than benefit from voluntary handouts.

Now, it's ironic that the group who filmed the above are a vegan anti-war organisation which presumably leans to the left - a fact borne out by the chant against 'corporate greed' - since it's clear that lefty authorities are equally happy to criminalise those who wish to voluntarily feed the poor as right of centre ones.

Perhaps for good reason, too. I mean, the argument that only the state - or those who are sanctioned by the state - are able to tend to the needy is a keystone of every government's thirst for taxation income. Too many 'mutuals' or other alternatives to state monopoly lends credence to the idea that there may be a perfectly workable solution to essential welfare needs which doesn't involve the removal of private income - to the benefit of public sector administrators - under the threat of imprisonment.

We must be directed to understand - by arresting heretics if need be - that looking after the poor can only be done properly by government, and anything that remotely threatens such a notion should be stamped on. Very hard.

Approved charities which align themselves with state policy will be fêted and amply funded, those which don't will suffer the full force of a state in defence of its aura of all-encompassing benevolence.

If that means letting the poor go hungry, so be it.

H/T Lawson


Leg-iron said...

Smokers, drinkers, fat people, the list has reached its inevitable conclusion. Now the target is simply 'anyone who makes the place look untidy'. Which is really all it was about all along. Eliminate the different and everyone left is, by definition, equal.

You won't be able to leave your house without a shirt and tie soon.

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

I can't remember when it was but I've certainly heard Brighton described as Skid Row on Sea.

Many of the jobsworths in government don't get the "public servant" thing - they see the word "government" and to them that equates to control and power.

Prohibited unless it's specifically allowed is the mantra. (Google translate helps :-)

One expects a few rules but the current ramping up of the control agenda pretty much everywhere is troubling.

The bottom line is that there are too many rule makers and too many jobsworth enforcers - roll on the day when there's not enough money in the public coffers to pay them.

Anonymous said...

LI says: 'anyone who makes the place look untidy'

Such refuse must be removed to the tip. Such refuse is not to be seen by the new aristocrats. Gentlemen step over the dead bodies in the streets - they are not there. But that does not matter - the money markets are in good order!

Anonymous said...

Have you been watching the anti-circumcision bandwagon in .ca?

And even the most fervent communists weren't immune to disappearing. Choose a pretence, and you'll be locked up.

Want to be fined for not wearing a helmet on a bicycle? Go to Australia.

I am about to become a father for the first time. Those twats who prevented me from smoking will now enjoy 24 hours of screaming all the way to Sydney, and another 24 all the way back. I shall be serenely holding my weapon of revenge.

I'll also light up when I have landed to enjoy the looks of indignation from my little-rested, bleary-eyed companions.

I could have told them. In the old days, even if you didn't smoke,take a smoking seat. No babies, you see.

You took my pleasure from smoking at work. Then you took it from my aircraft, then my business lounge at the airport, then my taxi, then my hire car and even now my fucking hotel room and even the bloody smoking room of my clubs.

So, Righteous, I cannot annoy you with my fumes, and I am a little too old to headbutt you. I shall deploy my secret weapon. You will be powerless to resist.

I shall follow you, you fucks. You took my smoking compartment from my train. Cop a four-month old wean all the way to Fort William and back.

Going First Class? So might I if I feel like it. Let's see how smug you feel now. Push your earplugs all the way in - it won't help much, and you'll still be assailed by the stench of a nappy, filled to overflowing with greasy, oily baby poo.

Little Black Sambo said...

"You won't be able to leave your house without a shirt and tie soon."
And a high-visibility yellow jacket.

Bob said...

Can't have that, it will reduce land values that are generated by everyone but enjoyed by a few.
Or maybe we should tax that rather than coercive taxes on labour and capital.