> I do sense that you have a very narrow view of what constitutes "reponsibility" and "ethics" - limiting it to apparently - 'how much money does one (or a group/organization) give to the poor either through taxes or charity". I would challenge that definition at its most fundamental level. 50 years of failed 'welfare" demonstrates quite nicely that money solves very little. the systemic and sociatl probelms we have can not be adequately addressed through money alone - if at all.

> You are failing to realize or acknowledge some basic laws of human nature at work here - namely that 1) you can not help someone who does not want to be helped 2)there are many people who are simply lazy or selfish and would rather take whatever than can get for free than try to work for anything. 3) for many -it is simply easier to vote money away from the industrious than to be industrious themselves.

> It reminds me of a test I once did - 3 times in one week. I went up to people who had "will work for food" signs. I offerred all 3 of them (separate incidences) 5-8 hour jobs (cleaning building, yard work, or something along that line) for $10/hr including ride to where it was, etc. and potenital for even more work. They were all physically able. ALL 3 of them looked at me like I was crazy. Two actually said "can't you just give me some money?" I did to one - but he got $5 instead of the $50-$80 he could have had.

Ken --

This part of the thread started when you picked out a short passage from a much longer message. The short passage you quoted referred to understanding responsibility not only to oneself but to one's wider community. You stated very clearly that responsibility to the wider community was important but that it should be done voluntarily, not imposed by government. So, we began a discussion on responsibility to one's community.