The government can't do anything right

[OldTrees]

Long story short: we all agree that charity can't actually do the job that government does.

You're wasting your breath talking about it.

The only real question is: should we even accept the notion that poor people deserve to live?  OldTrees thinks he has a good reason why not.  Anyone else?

To add detail for the other readers:
Essence and I are currently debating whether "People are entitled to life" vs any of the other possibilities like "People are required to help sustain life", "Sustaining life is Morally praiseworthy", "Sustaining life is Morally neutral unless morally relevant details are involved" or "Sustaining life is Morally forbidden".

A) Positive Right       "People are entitled to life"
B) Positive Duty        "People are required to help sustain life"
C) Supererogatory    "Sustaining life is Morally praiseworthy"
D) Neutral                 "Sustaining life is Morally neutral unless morally relevant details are involved"
E) Immoral                "Sustaining life is Morally forbidden".

Essence is arguing A is true. I am arguing A is false AND therefore one of B thru E is true.
I personally wander between B and C but hold myself personally to B.

[russianspy1234]

As OT went over, welfare programs see a small percentage of the money actually get to people who need it - versus charities, where the rate is nearly 100%.

citation needed.  maybe there are some charities that operate somewhere near that, but ive seen commercials for charities being PROUD of their 80% efficiency.

[johannhowitzer]

It depends on the kind of charity.  The commercials you see are likely overseas operations, which require a large overhead to operate; meanwhile, inner city charities have a very small overhead, little to no wage due to a large volunteer base, and spend almost all their money on services.  I've volunteered at a soup kitchen (though they don't actually serve any soup there) in Indianapolis that's run almost entirely by volunteers.  Their building was donated, I think; the daily non-food supplies don't cost any more than what they'd cost if the people being served had to maintain a kitchen in their own home.  They spend nearly every penny they get directly on their services.

[russianspy1234]

It depends on the kind of charity.  The commercials you see are likely overseas operations, which require a large overhead to operate; meanwhile, inner city charities have a very small overhead, little to no wage due to a large volunteer base, and spend almost all their money on services.  I've volunteered at a soup kitchen (though they don't actually serve any soup there) in Indianapolis that's run almost entirely by volunteers.  Their building was donated, I think; the daily non-food supplies don't cost any more than what they'd cost if the people being served had to maintain a kitchen in their own home.  They spend nearly every penny they get directly on their services.

thats good.  how many people can they support though?  there are only so many people out there willing and able to volunteer

[johannhowitzer]

They serve a large part of downtown Indianapolis, they're one of the bigger pantries/kitchens/etc. out there - and they do other stuff too, I think they offer job training but I've only helped out in the kitchen.