| Mr Khan said: I doubt the ability of individuals to participate in such a way meaningfully. I am of the view that it's easier to get a relatively small group of people all thinking the right way (e.g., the government) than to just sit around and hope the average person will awaken to the appropriate moral obligations. |
Of course its easier to persuade the Government than it is to go through the correct channels, which is why everybody does it, no matter what their agenda. Just because I see it as other people's moral obligations, doesn't mean I'm right. There are causes that I care about much more than others, and I'm sure you care about causes which are of little interest to me. Should we both lobby the Government so that you have to pay towards the causes you don't care about, while I have to pay for causes that you don't.
There are also areas where most people would agree to assistance, namely homelessness and hunger. It is my belief that without Government intervention, those two problems wouldn't be as bad as what they currently are. It is also my belief that if we had a Government that only stuck to protecting the natural law, that the vast majority of people would have much greater disposable incomes, of which they could then donate more of to these causes, to institutions that are far effective at handing out aid than the Government.
It is my argument that not only is state aid not morally just, it also isn't the most effective means of tackling issues to do with areas such as homelessness, hunger, healthcare.
