Charity corrupted

  Listening to the morning news and what the governor of Maryland has to say regarding bringing in National Guard troops to the city of Baltimore. Briefly he is opposed to that plan, declaring the crime is on the decline, record lows and everything is under control. Sure the police department is short staffed, by about 50%, sure there are still shootings, car jackings and the like going on but overall it's getting better. Hey, the kids are going back to school and that will reduce the crime rate, at least somewhat during the day. Being ex military himself he just doesn't want the troops to have that duty. They really aren't trained for that and it may even be illegal. 

  When confronted by the reporter with the actual crime statistics that show a different picture he just shrugs that off. He doesn't agree with the data, in fact declaring there is no data to support any claims that the presence of the guard reduced crime in DC. It just happened to coincide with the deployment of those troops in the city. But, he goes on to declare he would welcome any help the government is offering. Well monetarily that is, he would like more money as he has already spent everything the state already had. And now covid money is running out and Trump is saying he might withhold funding for the rebuild of the Key bridge unless they cooperate. To be clear, the governor wants the money, he just don't want anyone telling him how to spend it! It reminds me of those receiving SNAP benefits. They want the money, but they don't want any restrictions on what they buy with that money. It's there money!

  That leads me to this question, a question I have asked in the past. When extending charity to another or to a group or organization, should the person giving that charity have any say in the way it is used? Should charity be extended without any strings attached? It's a sticky moral and ethical question. Morally I would think that you should just extend that charity and walk away. Ethics however dictate a different approach. The ethics are determined by the one receiving the charity. When we disagree with that ethical choice should we withhold our charity? It's my feeling that it is indeed justified. Charity and the act of charitable contributions are solely governed by the individual. It does get a bit more complicated when that charity is coming from the public treasury. Then the governing force has to be agreed upon by the majority, I'm thinking a 2/3 majority at the very least. 

  Charity, giving to the cause. Whatever funds are given should be applied to resolving whatever the issue happens to be. In the case of SNAP benefits that cause is feeding people. Should there be limitations on what food can be purchased? It's an ethical choice on the one receiving the money. When the perception becomes that those receiving those benefits are abusing them, misusing them and indeed profiting from that, restrictions must be applied. We establish law for the same reason, as a means of control. We can't just trust everyone to do the right thing. Laws exist as punitive measures to those that fail to comply. All laws are, at their root, punitive in some fashion. Yes some laws are more for the protection of others, based in what we would call natural laws, but breaking those will result in some punitive action. The law exists to provide that punitive function, as an, I told you so.

  By extending charity, do you gain the right to define others ethics? That is the central question I'm asking here. No, I don't think you do. You can withhold any further charity however, that is certainly your prerogative. That's on an individual basis. When it comes to institutionalized charity, ie: from the public treasury, we can set an ethical standard to be met. A majority vote will establish that. We do so with our laws, why not with our charity as well. There is no constitutional right to charity. 

  … 

So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the honours of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch. 

—Polybius. 

Corruption begins not with the extending of charity, but in establishing dependence. What are the cries from the left? It is a call to violence under the all too familiar banner of "social justice" It is only through the just application of charity that justice will be served. The exercise of restraint is as important as the extending of charity.