Where’s the Charity in Force?
June 14, 2010 by Bdoga
Recently I had the opportunity to converse with an old friend on the topic of Charity. My friend informed me that from his perspective, in order to live my religion and be charitable, I should be a proponent of Government mandated and controlled health care. From his perspective this is understandable as it is a basic Christian tenet to take care of the poor and needy. Isn’t that all that is happening when the government injects itself into the health care industry? Aren’t we just making sure that those who don’t currently have health insurance are insured, so they don’t have to live in fear? Isn’t it the charitable, and therefore, the Christian thing to do?
After some additional study I submit this paper as an answer to all individuals who believe, specifically, that government should play a role in providing health care to Americans, and generally, that government should play a charitable role in our lives at all.
Charity is an Exalting Process

In an act of charity, the giver is exalted as they see or become aware of someone in want and reach within themselves to find a way to satisfy that person’s want of their own means. Often this act requires the giver to humble themselves and to reach further than may be comfortable in order to give, in other words, to make a sacrifice. This sacrifice empowers the giver to more fully recognize the great abundance with which he has been blessed. Serving others also carries with it the natural by-product of an increased love for all mankind. This occurs because one has copied the Lord’s example of serving others.
Conversely, those who are in want are exalted because of the potential for great spiritual growth through first, increased humility in the giving of thanks and the showing of gratitude for the care and support, and secondly, through the humbling act of requesting help from an individual or organization. Through this process of receiving, the receiver draws closer to the Savior, by realizing he is not alone, and that God is looking out for him through His other children.
We Are All Dependents
Clearly we are all dependent upon the Savior for our Salvation. None will return to him save through his grace. But when times are good and temporal things are plentiful, we tend to arrogantly forget our dependence upon him and can even leave him completely out of our daily lives. Thankfully the process of charity has the power to bring back to remember our dependence upon the Savior for all things.
So if charity has such a benevolent impact on givers and receivers, why not use government to spread it to all people within its borders? The reach of government is so immense, and its resources so deep, couldn’t charity be implemented among all people equally? Certainly, the charitable intent of the people wouldn’t change just because a government entity was used to provide it, would it? Let’s examine these questions and see if government truly could engage in the process of charitable giving.
Strike #1 for the Government – No Choice

Many seem to believe that the Government acting in the role of the giver (having been empowered by its citizens’ tax dollars) is a noble purpose. The core problem is the source of funds. Government can only acquire its funding through the power of force, in other words, the government must do it by law. Hence, when a law is passed there is always a required threat of force to enforce the law; the threats of fines, imprisonment, garnishment, and confiscation are the natural remedy for citizens who do not abide by the “charitable” law. We have little choice in the matter and may suffer at the hands of the state should we choose to resist. So on the First hand, the giver is not exalted through the process but rather they are debased as their power of choice has been stripped from them. This is a clear violation of their unalienable right of liberty, or, the ability to choose for themselves.
Strike #2 for the Government – No Growth

The receiver is deprived of the growing process which comes from asking a or seeking for help directly from others. They still must request the assistance of the Government, but the Government does not see and deal with individuals, rather they deal with social groups, economic classes, and political special-interest organizations. As long as you qualify for assistance it becomes an entitlement for you–in many cases the benefits are irrevocable–unless you physically repudiate it. Consequently, the expressions of gratitude are non-existent. Some may see it as just dipping into the bank account that they were forced to pay into when times were better for them, rather than realizing the Sacrifice of the Giver. Thus the receiver is debased, and has the real opportunity for growth of character stripped from them.
Strike #3 for the Government – A Wall of Separation
This process puts a wall up between the actual givers and receivers through the encompassing, bureaucratic arms of the Government. They never know each other and lose the opportunity for a meaningful relationship. You may even have two neighbors who are both participating in the “System,” one as a giver (Taxpayer) and the other as a receiver (beneficiary), but never realize that one is “Helping” the other . Therefore, they both are deprived of an increase in their neighborly relationship that they could have seen through the act of a direct request or bestowal of charity. As a result their relationship is debased and in all likelihood will not reach it’s potential level of exchange, communication, and love.
What About Charity & Non-Governmental Organizations?

There is a stark difference between governmental “charity” and the philanthropic efforts of private organizations. You will never see the Salvation Army volunteer ringing a bell with one hand while holding a gun in the other. It is critical to remember that a church or volunteer organization has no power of force (law) to command citizens to fund their charitable endeavors. In order to fulfill an organization’s missions, they must rely upon the free generosity of the citizenry. And not only do they rely upon their voluntary donations of material goods but also upon their donations of time and love. Private groups likewise facilitate meaningful communication between volunteers and recipients in order to ascertain how the organization can effectively serve the recipient. With a focus on the individual, rather than some arbitrary social order created by politicians, private charities can help receivers understand that the goods/funds/services they are receiving were made possible solely by the generosity of others; others who desired to give. This process retains the exalting effect on the givers, receivers, volunteers, and the organizations themselves and the world is better for it! True charity reigns and all of this is accomplished by agency and love rather than the force and coercion of the government.
Government – You’re Out!
The very act of “Charitable” giving by the bleeding heart of government, can and will have a damning effect on the citizens. This is because forced charity is a blatant violation of the peoples’ unalienable right of Liberty and ultimately the Savior’s tenet to serve others of one’s free will and choice. If indulged in for long enough, it will lead to a moral cancer, like a virus, that will corrupt the very heart and soul of any nation.
Therefore we see that Charitable Force or False Philanthropy is as destructive in its nature as its name suggests. All government “charitable” (or non-charitable) redistributions must be stopped, thus giving the citizens (IE. the marketplace) the opportunity to come up with better, more efficient, and more helpful ways to assist those in need. If the government was not involved in this so-called charitable giving, Inflation, our National Debt, and the economy would be in a much better state. People would retain a greater amount of their income to bless others how they see fit. And arguably those who now qualify for these government entitlement programs would be in a much better financial situation free of all the governmental “help” that they currently receive. But that is a subject for another post….










Wasn’t there a recent study that showed a strong correlation between the amount of cash donated to charity and political leaning (i.e. more government or less), with those preferring less tending (statistically) to give more than their compatriots who were all for the govt. giving away other people’s money?
Forced charity does indeed sound like a blatant violation but I don’t necessarily think that Universal Health Insurance has anything to do with charity. Paying for insurance is, in my opinion, more so selfish than it is charitable. Sure you pay into the system, and your money helps pay other people’s bills (which I suppose you could call charity).
But isn’t the reason you buy health insurance is so that you avoid, basically, bankruptcy (being the extreme case)? I know that’s why I buy insurance. I can afford paying a little each month for insurance but I can’t afford an E.R. visit. I’m only thinking of my needs when I buy insurance.
There are several things that we are “forced” to do but doing those things help the common good. We do this because we understand that we live in a society and our actions affect each other. I suppose the problem would be where to draw the line.
I personally believe that much of private health insurance is corrupt. I don’t believe that it is moral for a corporation to profit from denying legitimate claims. Obviously, in many cases, it is very difficult to determine whether a claim is legit or not. But wouldn’t it be charitable for the Insurer to give the insured the benefit of the doubt?
I have yet to put my energy behind any one health reform solution, but I do believe that health insurance providers should be non-profit. I’m excited to hear about non-profit co-op groups, as I believe this is a step in the right direction.
I agree, it is tough to figure out where to draw the line, Our Nations Founders understood that whatever government sets out to do, it has force behind it. They had been dealing with a government (England) that was tyrannical, and at a whim could/would impose unethical and unnecessary punishments, or restraints upon the liberties of the people here in the americas. They had no representation but were being taxed, they were forced to quarter soldiers in their houses, they were forced to submit to warrantless searches and seizures at the whim of a British officer, etc… As they studied history they found it filled with examples of governmental abuse, and so they sought to, in the creation of this nation, chain down the government so that the people could be free to act without the constant threat of an oppressive government. They sought to make the duties and responsibilities of the Federal Government few and defined, leaving the greater number of powers to the States and Municipalities, where the people could have a greater say and control over those powers.
The Federal Government has clearly stepped far beyond it’s legal and intended bounds under the Constitution. Maybe we want to have a government run Health Care system. The perfect litmus test for something like that is to make it legal under the Constitution through the amendment process. If the amendment can stand through the scrutiny and debate of an amendment process, then we know that it is a fundamental change to our government that the people actually want to see. But pushing the bill through at all hazard, is careless and abusive to the people. On this point I believe that Patrick Henry said it best “In proportion to the Magnitude of the subject ought to be the Freedom of the Debate, it is the only way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the obligation which we hold to God and our Country.” or in other words if we have something that is going to create massive changes for our people, then we should debate it completely, so that we can find and remove any flaws from the legislation before it becomes law.
The Constitution was originally a 4 page document, and it took almost a year of debate before it was ratified by the states. These health care bills are anywhere from 1100 to 2500 pages and originally they wanted to pass it by in less than a month. I am sure that when all is said and done if this bill passes the United States people will have buyers remorse, even those who were it’s biggest proponents.
I agree that there may very well be some corruption and problems with the Health Insurance companies, but I would content that as big as those problems are, we will find the same and probably greater corruption/problems with Government Run Healthcare. The problems come basically from the same source, Government control or protection. Most insurance companies benefit from some sort of Government protection through regulation, making it near impossible for new, innovative, and young companies to come and compete. Thus driving down the costs and increasing the coverages of insurance plans. This problem will only intensify under a complete government monopoly.
But this post was not specifically about Health Care, although it is a concern. Government cannot do any sort of act that would be construed as charity without first forcibly removing it from the wallet of another individual. If you did it it would be called charity, but if the government does it they call it helping the unfortunate. Because government derives it’s power from we the people, it has no authority to perform any act that we could not of our own individual right do.
Questions like these regarding government should always be preceded by one fundamental question and that is,
“What is the proper role of government?”
That one question alone holds all of the power and should determine the course of the discussion following it. Government’s role is to secure the freedom to enjoy life, liberty, and property. This is all.
Any government “insurance” program is a misuse of the term “insurance”.
This includes the FDIC, the proposed Health insurance Program, and especially the so-called “social security insurance” program. For those of you who are old enough to remember, social security was initially promoted as an “insurance” program. Only in recent years when the ponzi aspect of social security became undeniable has the government tried to rewrite history and tried to claim that it was never intended as a insurance program.
Like Pinnochio, with every lie like this the government’s nose gets longer and longer. Some of you remember the lie that our social security number was not intended to be an identification program a statement which was actually printed on my first social security card.
Get the government out of these fraudulent insurance programs including all their regulations of private programs and we can finally have affordable real insurance.