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

hence why I said "practically"

but charity doesn't expect a return on investment

Its a sweeping government solution to say X, y and or Zthey want to give things to people who don't just need it, like nobody gives charity to people who aren't needing charity yet **universal** healthcare and similar are for **ALL**

doesn't expect the situation to improve at all

welfare doesn't necessarily either

welfare isn't intended to be permanent

it has conditions

charity does not

charity is not intended to be permanent

proper charity gets people out of problems

charity is uncoditional

yes and no

verb and noun

Yes, but really no

you keep switching

a 'charity' is NOT 'charity'

I meant

charity

the noun

not the verb

seperate concepts

this entire time

cause the noun is a legal entity

subject to all the typical corruptions

but 'charity' is typically about the reasoning for giving

definitionally ma is correct

and you don't expect to receive anything back

having reasons by definition means it is not unconditional

and you HOPE it will make the situation better

it is simply not on the condition of expecting something in return directly

but you don't place conditions on that charity

but, for example