public options literally get free money, stolen from private options

Okay so don't remove the tax incentive

that's the definition of "anti-competitive"

a charity is a non-profit

even with a tax incentive

i.e. not competitive

by legal requirement

the public option still gets free money

just stolen elsewhere

so you only lose half of the anticompetitive advantage

public option for what?

charity

welfare

seperate concepts

identical

almost

welfare is just forced charity

Many charities are guilty of not actually doing what they claim.

to an autist

identical

welfare is literally forced charity

very different in reality

welfare is a forced donation

but not charity

you of ALL people should know the difference

that depends on your definition of charity

given your faith

I to this day disagree that welfare is public charity, I do not think the philosophical ideas line up with that conception even if it addresses the same problem

Autism I know

obviously, in the moral sense, "forced charity" is an oxymoron

it's a type of 'tax'

but, practically speaking, welfare is forced charity

charity by definition is voluntary and done for DIFFERENT reason

the different reasons is far more central to the definition

it tries to do what charity tries to do, but with force

and is obv less effective as a result

that's not what welfare tries to do at all

it also kills the charitable nature of the populace

you are looking at it PURELY from the perspective of the person paying the bill

because "oh dont worry, I'm sure the govt will take care of it, it's not my problem"

but what if charity was not kill