Barky 说:
Giving money to charity or helping out at a soup kitchen only go so far. Plus, not everybody has the time or resources to donate to charity. Better that everyone pays for it through the state so that the cost can be distributed more evenly and that helping out the vulnerable doesn't rely on the good graces of more privileged people.
Of course to truly get rid of poverty requires more than a change of government or giving a few bob to Help the Aged.
Not everybody has the time and resources to donate to charity but everyone can pay for it through the state? The welfare state is a huge inefficient bureaucracy that lacks the ability to personalise in the same way charities can. It also comes with far more conditions than charity does, the unemployed have to be seeking employment to receive a higher welfare payment despite there being people who would pay them the same amount of money regardless of whether they are looking for work or not.
If believing that some people might not do as I want them to do was a solid reason for not leaving the choice to them then I think we'd have very few liberties in this world.
crodio 说:
So the state should not help the poor, disabled and etc directly?
It should not. If a similar organisation were to come about as a result of consensual giving, rather than through force, then I would see no issue with it.
But this is largely irrelevant, there's no party in this election offering that type of policy (to the relief of some

).