August 5, 2006

Magister Mundi Sum
Everett

Annatar, I think our charity debate has suffered from two problems. The first is that we're talking past one another. The second is that we don't seem to have defined the terms of the debate clearly enough. From what I can gather we were debating primarily the proper role of the government in aiding the poor and whether the taxation necessary to pay for these programs would detract from people's charitable giving. You haven't offered anything like an argument on the first point and have merely asserted that anyone who uses increased taxation as an excuse not to give to charity is merely using it as an excuse. You have neither presented any evidence for this nor made an argument as to why this is the case.

Also, I think you're misreading some of my points. For instance, I fail to see how my statement that your first obligation is to help those with whom you come in contact can be reasonably read as an obligation to only help those you know. Also, much of what I wrote in my last post on the subject was written to emphasize the importance of the effect of giving, as well as the need to balance the need for giving with other obligations.

As to your points about "extreme capitalism", I find your allusion to John Paul the Great unconvincing in large part because you have failed to state what you mean by "extreme capitalism", let alone make an argument for it is as bad as communism. I don't mean to say there is nothing wrong with capitalism, but it will take quite the argument to demonstrate that capitalism, even "extreme" capitalism, whatever its faults, is as bad as communism.

As far as the situation in Europe goes, I find it very difficult to take your word that the movers and shakers within the EU don't aspire to the establishment of a sort of United States of Europe. Heck, they already have the three branches of government: the European Commission; the European Parliament; and various European courts, including a European Court of Human Rights. They're trying to get a European Constitution implemented even after it has been soundly rejected by two EU member states. There are attempts to establish a European military, a European arrest warrant, and top-down tax harmonization within the EU. There's already a common currency. Am I wrong on any of these points? If so, which ones? And how should I interpret those facts above that I have gotten right if there is not an advanced effort to establish a trans-Eurpoean state?

I'm not sure what I could have said to give you the idea that I thought culture a static thing. Culture consists of the principles, beliefs, and traditions of a people handed down over generations. The principles undergirding a culture are fairly enduring, as are the beliefs stemming from them and the traditions of said culture. The beliefs and traditions of a culture not only can change, but they must change if the culture is to survive, let alone flourish. However, these changes must be consistent with the underlying principles of the culture, or the culture will be undermined. And because it is culture that makes civilization possible, undermining culture undermines civilization. Furthermore, because different cultures develop different fundamental principles, there is only a limited extent to which different cultures can be reconciled. This is what I was attempting to get at in my critique of thinking of oneself as a citizen of the world. In doing so, you ignore the fundamental elements of civilized life and downplay the importance of culture on the development and maintaining of societies. Ultimately, you ask the wrong question when you ask if these things are worth the life of a single, starving baby, because unless that baby is your own or your immediate concern (i.e. it's right there in front of you) the fact that you give a rat's behind is a conseqence of the culture in which you developed your moral code. My argument has nothing to do with fears of a world government. Rather, it has everything to do with addressing what appear to be fantastical elements of your views of human nature.