Message from @Coolitic
Discord ID: 683532016377266176
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'
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
welfare has entry and exit criteria
you are either elligble or not
you may choose not to prioritize those who are not reliable or are dangerous
that is describing the noun again
not the act