Tag: Charity

1335: James Madison – Charity is No Part of Government

W1335: James Madison – Charity is No Part of Government
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. —James Madison
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. —James MadisonDownload Print Quality (7680×4020) 279KB  |  Normal Quality (3840×2010) 136KB
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. —James MadisonDownload Print Quality (7680×7680) 371KB  |  Normal Quality (3840×3840) 328KB

Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. —James Madison

1296: Walter Williams – False Charity

W1296: Walter Williams - False Charity
The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable. —Walter Williams
The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable. —Walter WilliamsDownload Print Quality (3840×2010) 4.04MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005) 273KB
The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable. —Walter WilliamsDownload Print Quality (3840×2744) 5.25MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372) 369KB

The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable. —Walter Williams

1248: Murray Rothbard – Statists are Really Opposed to Charity

W1248: Murray Rothbard - Statists are Really Opposed to Charity
Statists, in fact, are really opposed to charity. They often argue that charity is demeaning and degrading to the recipient, and that he should therefore be taught that the money is rightly his, to be given to him by the government as his due. An act of charity, when given voluntarily, is generally considered temporary and offered with the object of helping a man to help himself. But when the dole is ladled out by the State, it becomes permanent and perpetually degrading, keeping the recipients in a state of subservience. Anyone who considers private charity degrading must logically conclude that State charity is far more so. —Murray Rothbard
Statists, in fact, are really opposed to charity. They often argue that charity is demeaning and degrading to the recipient, and that he should therefore be taught that the money is rightly his, to be given to him by the government as his due. An act of charity, when given voluntarily, is generally considered temporary and offered with the object of helping a man to help himself. But when the dole is ladled out by the State, it becomes permanent and perpetually degrading, keeping the recipients in a state of subservience. Anyone who considers private charity degrading must logically conclude that State charity is far more so. —Murray RothbardDownload Print Quality (7680×4020) 300KB  |  Normal Quality (3840×2010) 146KB
Statists, in fact, are really opposed to charity. They often argue that charity is demeaning and degrading to the recipient, and that he should therefore be taught that the money is rightly his, to be given to him by the government as his due. An act of charity, when given voluntarily, is generally considered temporary and offered with the object of helping a man to help himself. But when the dole is ladled out by the State, it becomes permanent and perpetually degrading, keeping the recipients in a state of subservience. Anyone who considers private charity degrading must logically conclude that State charity is far more so. —Murray RothbardDownload Print Quality (5800×7680) 319KB  |  Normal Quality (2900×3840) 157KB

Statists, in fact, are really opposed to charity. They often argue that charity is demeaning and degrading to the recipient, and that he should therefore be taught that the money is rightly his, to be given to him by the government as his due. An act of charity, when given voluntarily, is generally considered temporary and offered with the object of helping a man to help himself. But when the dole is ladled out by the State, it becomes permanent and perpetually degrading, keeping the recipients in a state of subservience. Anyone who considers private charity degrading must logically conclude that State charity is far more so. —Murray Rothbard

1247: Murray Rothbard – Taking Wealth by Force is Not Charity

W1247: Murray Rothbard - Taking Wealth by Force is Not Charity
It is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity… Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. —Murray Rothbard
It is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity… Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. —Murray RothbardDownload Print Quality (3840×2010) 1.87MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005) 170KB
It is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity… Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. —Murray RothbardDownload Print Quality (3840×2744) 3.11MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372) 221KB

It is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity… Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. —Murray Rothbard