Forcing Charity: A Contradiction At The Root Of Left-Wing Politics

The phrase forced charity is a contradiction, and yet it’s precisely this principle that’s the cornerstone of virtually all left-wing doctrine.

In one form or another, forcing charity lies at the root of every major democratic program — from public schools, to welfare, to social security, to medicare and medicaid, to unemployment checks, and so on, all of which, the left-winger believes, cannot be handled voluntarily, and so must be forced.

But suppose for a moment that this bedrock belief is wrong. What then?

The following is an explosive phone call which recently took place on 850 KOA, and it captures the issue in such a way that it might just change your life. Ross Kaminsky is the host. It is a civil and absolutely riveting exchange between a garden-variety left-winger and black republican who does not believe in or want government handouts, and who properly understands the danger of such handouts.

Push play and then slide the player over to exactly the 22:50 mark. The call lasts about seven minutes. Listen:

23 Comments

  • Dale

    September 13, 2011

    I heard a news report claiming 59% of people that voted for Torpedo now say he is “more liberal” than them. This suggests a scale for liberalism, but…

    To be liberal, i.e. on the scale, don’t you have to embrace government as having precedence over individual people?
    Doesn’t a liberal always consider the “greater good” achieved through more government power and control? regulate tax and spend? reduced personal freedom?
    To be liberal, don’t you have to believe that for every $100 in government this year, we need $110 next year, no questions asked (except for defense, of course)? that anything less than 10% growth in non-defense government is a Draconian cut? an effort to kill off old people? and kittens! don’t the taxpayers want to kill the kittens too?
    Don’t liberals proclaim our moral obligations? to provide medical care to all no matter what? to guarantee home ownership whether the buyers can afford the payment or not? in the name of fairness? and the only way to fulfill those moral obligations is through government edict, confiscation, coercion, force of arms?

    So, what does it mean to be “more liberal”? Not a single one of them is willing to discuss spending in honest terms.
    Until “cut” means the government spends LESS THAN it did before, for example, we’re still dealing with dishonest people who have no plans to “Leave Us Alone”

  • ScummyD

    September 14, 2011

    “Give me an opportunity and get out of my way, that’s all I need you to do.” –black caller

    “What have the Republicans done for you.” –white lib

    “You missed the point.” –black caller

  • Nick

    September 14, 2011

    Is that the wrong link, Ray?

    The 22:50 is some idiot host named Mike Rosen talking about race with some idiot caller.

  • Ray

    September 14, 2011

    That’s not Mike Rosen. It’s a guest host named Ross Kaminsky.

    Which is beside the point, however.

  • Nick

    September 14, 2011

    What’s not beside the point is that the host doesn’t talk about charity. He talks about race. Speaking of which, he says he’s white.

    What’s up?

  • Ray

    September 14, 2011

    The host doesn’t, you’re correct. Which is why the issue of the host is beside the point.

  • Nick

    September 14, 2011

    What the fuck are you talking about? You write a post about a black Republican taking on some commie puke regarding forced charity, then you link to a commie puke and a white guy arguing about race.

    Tighten this shit up, Harvey.

  • Micky

    September 15, 2011

    Yeah, the lefts charity principle is pretty disgusting as one moonbat made very clear the other day when he told me the whole of society is already dead if they’re not all willing to fall on their swords for one man.
    I argued that the society is dead if theres not one individual willing of his own accord to sacrifice for all of humanity.
    In short he believed that everyone should pay his healthcare at the risk of destroying that societys economy thru mandated coverage
    ###########################
    Micky;

    ” would you kill a whole society for the good of one man ?”

    Klo;

    “If that society does not care about him and his fate, then that society is dead already.”
    ############################

    This also drives home the point that they’re just flat out stupid.

    Better question yet is, “you’ve been voting democrat for 50 years now, where has it gotten you ?”
    Cant have it both ways claiming and whining all the time about how screwed you are these days while saying the left has done so much for you.
    If this is the case then why are you assholes never happy ?

  • Dale

    September 15, 2011

    When a Democrat says “we have a moral obligation” and “we” means the Democrat and the mouse in his pocket, then we’ll see a Democrat that has some integrity.

    Meanwhile, when a Democrat says “we have a moral obligation”, he or she means we need to increase taxes, increase regulation, increase government, increase corruption, force everyone else to pay for it while skimming and stealing and increasing Democrat wealth and power.

    Let me put it another way. Let there be a Democrat that, when they see something that needs the help of all those good intentions, they act on it themselves, with their own time, their own money, the help and support of their friends. This is in direct contrast to what they ALWAYS do instead: create more government, force us to pay for all that corruption which always seems to make worse what it purports to correct. Oh, and how they exempt themselves from the cost.

    To make matters worse, after they force us to pay for what they edict as our moral obligations, they call us selfish and greedy, racists and terrorists.
    Classic case of projection. You always know what Democrats will do next, just listen to what they accuse their opposition of, and you know what they are.

    Wasn’t it Pee-Wee that said it best: “That’s what you are, so what am I?”

  • Micky

    September 16, 2011

    Heh, the reason they want abortion to remain legal is so they can continue promiscuity but instead would have us all believe its to control carbon offsets or its just too cruel a world to bring any child into.
    Everything deserves its entitlement unless its going to get in your way, then we can just kill it.
    There whole system is basically designed to take as much of the parenting load off the parent as much as possible and pass it on to the government.

    I might be wrong

  • Micky

    September 16, 2011

    Their, there, and they’re. They are my three nemesis’s

  • David Cochrane

    September 25, 2011

    Anthony (caller): “I don’t want the Government to do stuff for me.”

    Me: A-fucking-men, that goes for me too. Stop doing stuff for me – I can’t fucking afford it.

  • David Cochrane

    September 25, 2011

    @ Micky: It’s four nemeses. You left out “plurals.”

  • KJJ

    September 26, 2011

    I guess I’m in the middle because I believe the government should help us ( I thought that’s why we have one) and I also believe the government shouldn’t be able to force us into doing anything we don’t want to. I also don’t think the government should be able to control how our lives should be lived. Example: If you’re gay.. you shouldn’t be given any less rights (it’s a piece of paper and anyone should be able to marry)If you don’t want to join the military, they shouldn’t be allowed to force you to (if you’re not religious and don’t believe in war – no point anyway)

    Truth be told.. I’m not sure why we have government anyway, if they don’t care about the people they’re here to serve and lead.

    It’s obvious I’m not a professional politician or even educated in it. I only know what I see and here. I only know what I agree with and don’t. I only know what I wish for. I only know what I want for my child and hope the best for his future.

    Thanks.

  • KJJ

    September 26, 2011

    *hear, sorry :-)

  • Greg

    September 26, 2011

    KJJ,

    In response to your comment, “I’m not sure why we have government anyway..”, you may want to check out Ray’s post on the “Theory of Government”. It is a nice essay with a brief history of how societies were organized in the past.

    http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/03/political-theory-theory-of-government/

    In short, “..government is an institution whose function is to protect the individual against the initiation of force.”

    The only legitimate function of the government is to protect individual rights. As for assistance for the needy, that is the realm of charity.

    KJJ, like you I once thought the government was suppose to provide a social “safety net”. Once I understood that property rights were violated in order to provide welfare I finally rejected any and all government funded social programs.

  • KJJ

    September 26, 2011

    Greg,

    This is the reason I love sites like these because I learn where to go to find out info. I like to give my opinion because I’m not one of these people who sits and obsesses over politics but tries to learn enough so I can try to understand what the heck is going on. (which means I don’t)

    I don’t think the government is here for handouts but I thought they were here for leadership, support, and most important someone to look up to. Right now I’m so confused about the government and what their purpose is. Another thing I noticed is it doesn’t seem like people want to work together, they only want to do whatever is going to be best for them or people like them.

    Have a great day!

  • KJJ

    September 26, 2011

    Thanks Greg, I went to his essay and I enjoyed it (especially the picture) my suggestion is to cut back on food production :-)

  • Dale

    September 26, 2011

    In order for government to have resources to provide as charity, they must first confiscate them by force.
    In order for the government to pay for the Solyndra “investment”, they had to take money from you and me.
    Democrats have no trouble doing that, because they think they know better how we should invest our money than we do.
    So, rather than me being able to invest my money (property) the way I see fit, it has been confiscated and flushed down a Democrat toilet.
    Rather than pay off my house and save for retirement, my hard-earned income has been confiscated and flushed down a Democrat toilet.
    Why aren’t Democrats being held accountable for the crime of putting the Democrat money bundler ahead of the taxpayer in direct violation of the law?

    Why aren’t Democrats being held accountable for the crime of using our tax dollars to buy semi-automatic weapons and give them to Mexican drug cartels?
    Pop quiz:
    how many people injured or killed in Watergate?
    how many people injured or killed by Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious fiasco?

    What does Torpedo say? “Republicans better pass my bill or they’re just playing politics.” Fucking liar.
    There is no bill! The skank Democrats haven’t filed it! It’s just a big lie designed to create chaos, aka it’s Torpedo Time!

    I can tell what government is NOT for: declaring moral causes and forcing us to pay for them whether we like it or not.
    Laissez-nous faire!

  • Micky

    September 27, 2011

    A friend of mine summed it all up rather nicely the other day.

    “Hope n Change has turned into – Are you fucking kidding me ?”

    There have been presidents before who’ve earned their fair amount of ridicule regardless of ideology. Simply enough, everyone is only human.
    The problem with this president being topic de jour is that I can no longer criticize him on a political level due to the simple fact that hes has had the least amount of effect in fulfilling those duties even at an amateur level. Which leaves me no other choice but to approach him on a human level. That in itself has become rather depressing when putting together in my mind the kind of humanity that elected him to office in the first place and then still, after everything we’ve witnessed, choose to still defend and support him.
    The whole thing both professionally and the man himself has become so absolutely surreal, such a phenomenal paradox fueled by self conflict and hypocrisy that it seriously reminds me of the feeling I’ve gotten when locked up in the loony bin for a week. (long story)

    Seriously, it feels like all one can do is just sit back an wait till the train wreck before your eyes in slow motion stops like some babbling fruit cake who wont quit til hes literally run out of fuel.
    Kinda like watching twins conjoined at the ass arguing over who has to shit their next meal

  • Dale

    September 27, 2011

    “Kinda like watching twins conjoined at the ass arguing over who has to shit their next meal.”
    Oh, man, that IS sick. Saved the best for last, did we?

  • TD

    October 9, 2011

    Am I missing something with this audio clip? Where’s the “riveting exchange” that involves a black Republican about forced charity?

    (What’s really weird and confusing is that there IS a call that starts precisely at the 22:50 mark, but it’s nothing like the one described in the preceding text.)

  • TD

    October 9, 2011

    Well, I figured it out. Here’s the deal: The relevant audio DOESN’T start at the 22:50 mark. It starts around the 30-minute mark (which is after the “about seven minutes” duration we were told).

    The ensuing (and brief) conversation was interesting, I suppose, but it certainly wasn’t “riveting” enough to merit the half-hour-plus I just spent trying to listen to it.

    Also, I see that another commenter, Nick, had already brought this to your attention more than three weeks ago, and you didn’t correct it then.

    A pretty reader-unfriendly experience all around, I’d say.

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field