Poverty - relative vs. absolute

[Beet]

Ordinarily I'd say absolute poverty since absolute poverty implies relative poverty-- the absolutely poor are also relatively poor.

However from the perspective of the government, which is funded by U.S. taxpayers, I would say that government has a first obligation to look after the poor in its own borders, and if that means 'relative' poverty, then we need to look at that 'relative' poverty as a more pressing problem. That does not preclude also contributing to international efforts to alleviate poverty in other countries.

[Beet]

You're all heart Emsworth ... Unfortunately, not all private citizens feel obliged to help the poor

While I donate to charity, I certainly do not believe that I am entitled to be generous with someone else's money. If someone else does not feel obliged to help the poor, should he be forced to do so against his will? In  my opinion, the answer is certainly no.

Yet, you feel perfectly entitled to be generous with someone else's money to pursue your goal of providing outside protection for the endangered from coercion.

[Beet]

Yet, you feel perfectly entitled to be generous with someone else's money to pursue your goal of providing outside protection for the endangered from coercion.

As I have noted in other threads, I see the two issues completely differently. For me, the ultimate goal of a government should be to minimize coercion and maximize individual freedom. Security is (in my opinion) necessary to accomplish these goals; welfare is not. Indeed, the very purpose of welfare programs has nothing whatsoever to do with individual freedom.

You are entitled to believe that alleviating economic disparities is a legitimate function of the government: I would simply disagree with you.

Yes, I gleaned your precise position from our previous discussion, but that's why I found your quote a bit misleading:

I certainly do not believe that I am entitled to be generous with someone else's money.

I was merely pointing out that you do feel entitled to "be generous with someone else's money" (of course, 'generous' is always subjective) as long as the aim is to minimize coercion, and not minimize material want. Your position remains valid, but your quote was misleading and should have carried the necessary caveats.

[Beet]

I was merely pointing out that you do feel entitled to "be generous with someone else's money" (of course, 'generous' is always subjective) as long as the aim is to minimize coercion, and not minimize material want. Your position remains valid, but your quote was misleading and should have carried the necessary caveats.

"Generosity" is a term normally associated with charity; hence, I don't necessarily believe that the sentence was misleading.

Providing someone with protection from coercion can also be called generous, and charitable.

[Beet]

Providing someone with protection from coercion can also be called generous, and charitable.

If you wish, you can call it generous, but clearly this was not the context in which I was speaking.

Ok, though most people would not disagree that protecting a stranger from coercion can be a form of generosity, which is why many people might thank a stranger for chasing after a pickpocket, for example, with a small reward if the item stolen was returned successfully.

The complete context of your post, including the line "forced to do so against his will" seemed to suggest a focus on the means of acquiring the money and the notion of using it to one's ends; there was no apparent exclusion of using it for any other ends but material wealth.

Thus it could very easily be misinterpreted, and I think most people would have done so, especially if they did not know your precise position beforehand.