> Simon wrote:

> Is there a separation of church and state in the UK? <

Nope, the Queen is actually the official head of state AND head of the Church of England.

Britain has no real constitution, that is the problem. Instead Britain relies on archaic traditions and the mass media.

/ignore Kemp off

Kemp, I am taking you off of my ignore list temporarily, until, inevitably, you insult, accuse, or slander me - the usual personal attacks you commit.  Why?  Because I honestly would like to discuss the topic you raise in this last post.

Libertarians often claim that churches and other religious organizations could provide a lot of the social services needed by the poor and use this as justifying cutting government-run social services.

But here we have the Archbishop of York calling for more government-run social services for the poor.  Clearly, if the churches don't think they are up to the task, doesn't that destroy libertarians' claims that the churches are up to the task?

What alternative is there besides state-run social services, if the churches and religious organizations aren't able to meet the needs of the poor, disenfranchised, and dis-possessed, as you would claim they are?

^ What Zarf pointed out.

I'm not against safety-net programs. Not everyone has a family/friend support network which can save them from some of the terrible stuff that happens in life. It's moral to want to help people, and it's not even [very] economically costly to do so responsibly (because people back on their feet produce more [lower prices] and pay more taxes).

My problem is with safety-net programs designed to buy votes, not help people. My problems is with safety-net programs which reward irresponsible/wasteful behavior, rather than discourage it. My problem is with our corrupt, wasteful, and unaccountable government running these programs, potentially resulting in less aid to the poor and certainly more waste than if they simply didn't exist.

If our populace was responsible enough in their voting, if our government was responsible enough in their governance, I might not be as against the form of most of our current safety-net programs. Government *could* be everywhere and government *could* help people that don't have the fortune of local organizations and programs helping them out with what they need when they need it.

But our government in the USA isn't. It's clearly massively wasteful and doesn't provide the needed help, let alone in a reasonable form. Not only does it not help those who need adequately, but it's on a path to bankrupt the entire nation and impoverish future generations with massive debt and a collapsed economy.

In my opinion, anyone that wants to help the poor needs to do some things:

*Volunteer your time (knowledge/expertise/labor) and/or money to worthy causes. I'm tired of intellectual lightweights pretending it's government or nothing to help the needy. Most of these people have never helped a soul with their own hands/sweat and just want to feel like moral people purely by paying taxes. Most of these people earn enough that an extra few thousand dollars in taxes is irrelevant and just support a nanny-state to feel better about themselves because they're too lazy to give a damn about their fellow man and actually help him/her.

*Support government reform and stop voting for whoever the Republican/Democrat political machine hands to you. Most of them are scum. Until enough people stop voting for them and vote for alternatives, however, we're just going to get more of what we've been getting. Rampant corruption. Massive deficits. Huge debt. Impending collapse.

I can respect the motivations of people who want to help the poor and think government is the only solution. But government programs are plagued with fraud and waste. Government programs often disincentivize production and result in higher prices for everybody; hurting the poor. And eventually they'll contribute to an economic collapse (NOBODY argues what we're doing is sustainable), which will harm the poor far more than anyone else. "Give more money to the poor through government" is NOT a responsible course of action, nor is doing so a responsible position.

Perhaps, with a more informed and responsible populace voting for better people, government could handle helping the poor better. But our government isn't anywhere near capable of such a task at the moment. And giving them more money for this supposed purpose can easily lead to more harm than help for the poor.

Bara if somebody will coordinate those few hours a month with enough people that's 24/7/365 coverage.

"In capitalist society, volunteering is considered to be a few half-assed hours every month...."

If you say so? That's a cultural description. I don't fit into it. I live in a capitalist society.

"But I believe under capitalism, giving monetary support to people in legitimate need does not work. The social construct of Capitalism has a terrible, nightmarish aversion to this idea."

Again, what? There's no one cultural understanding "under capitalism."

It's a fact that capitalism -- economic freedom -- is linked to standard of living increases. For everyone. About 50 academic studies have been done studying the relationship, and 100% found it to be positive. Cultural views of giving are not inherently related to capitalism. If you want to to argue against trashy people without values, I'll join you. But this argument is in no way related to capitalism. Capitalism is in no way inherently against giving to those in need among us.

You're in serious danger of becoming a reasonable man!

Capitalism definitions differ. When I refer to capitalism, I'm generally using a definition including a loooot of economic freedom.

The point I make is that this subversion of values and rights is committed by government. Obviously our corrupt government does it at the behest of their generous wealthy handlers. (They fund campaigns and bribe their way to all the influence they can afford.)

Our corrupt government and their wealthy elite owners want a dependent people. They want you to depend on them for housing, food, and income. Communism, socialism, income redistribution, and "social justice" are tools with which they seek to gain more power, not less. They'll take literally every ounce of power they can get their hands on. The power to control wages is one they'd love--for their sake, not yours or mine. The problem is they have too much power. They steal through pork spending and the secret actions of the fed. The solution is to take power away from them, not give them more.

The solution is like Mel Gibson said before he became (or we realized he was) bat-shit crazy.
FRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOM!

Ewwww government reaching for more control, claiming religious authority!

I'm glad my ancestors wrote laws against this nonsense.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Ewwww government reaching for more control, claiming religious authority!

I'm glad my ancestors wrote laws against this nonsense. <

Ironically I think the religious nuts have far more influence and power in the US then they do in the UK. I rarely hear about the Church of England doing anything political or legislative.

> The Yell wrote:

> Bara if somebody will coordinate those few hours a month with enough people that's 24/7/365 coverage.

that must be wrong, its 24/7/52 or it makes no sense

24h a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year

alright?

lol @ esa