Haitian Disaster Shows World Come Together... Late as Always?

[mrstickball]

Zucas said:

mrstickball said:

Okay then,

If you say your at fault for the issue, why are you posting here? Why aren't you spending your time helping in a homeless shelter instead of posting a rant on a message board to people that probably don't even understand the situation?

If you want to understand the problem and solution, a good place to start is usually.....Working with people that are in the problem you discribe to understand how their situations can actually be alievated. That is why I find your rant so hypocritical, you are essentially saying 'Why does humanity not help people when I don't even understand their situation, either?'.

As for me, I've done all the things I asked of you. That is why I know the good and bad sides to charity and helping the less fortunate. There is a reason that Johnstons 'great society' hasn't helped the poverty any more than when the government spent no money on poverty. When you work with those that are less fortunate, you do understand why some people are in such dire situations. You also see the great value in making a personal effort to helping people, as well, so as I said it has its good and bad sides.

Well I will give you credit for your efforts donated to helping othes.  I've helped out in the past as well but namely in donations to certain charities, salvation army, and of course countless food drives. 

But I'm curious why someone who has done that, has only thought so basic and linearly about it as to not really expand their analysis on the situation.  Why the refusal to give deep critical thought to the issue I've proposed despite having experience?  If the current existence of charity ahs good and bad sides, why not think of a way to make it only have good sides.  I'm always talking in ways where you find the root of the problem and you fix it and all subsequen things cease to matter.  Why sit their and accept a flawed system and act as if you've exhausted all scenarios when you can actually debate over here with me one that works. 

That's what I've been asking the entire time.  We know we live in this flawed world, even in the state of charity, yet we sit back and accept it.  That's what I'm asking.  Hopefully you finally understand what I'm saying.

Because making charities have only good sides requires ruthlessness and things that aren't so shiny and kid-friendly. The problem is that charities are seen as dispensiaries of love, help, and aid - sometimes to their fault. If you only wanted a 'good' side to charity, you would only help people willing to make their life better. Unfortunately, few charities or government leaders have the quads to actually do that. Usually government-run welfare programs force users (or private charities getting government assistance) to aid regardless of question. The problem with that is that those that really need the help, and can use it, do not get enough, and those that do not need the help, get nothing at all.

That is what the problem is - there are quotas and rules to aid that cause it to not uplift the people that it needs to.

So my question to you is - Do you mind destroying the welfare and charity system as we know it and move it to a system that seeks to help those really willing to change their lives? If so, a majority of charity may be removed, and certain people will invariably die. The system would be better for it, but are you willing to allow them to die?