The problem with arguing that the government shouldn’t “mandate” charity is the huge gap between the amount of money that people are willing to give and the amount that shelters, hospitals, et cetera actually need. Anyone who falls into this gap receives inadequate care or no care at all.
And while any gift at all is generous and kind—unless you are a trust fund philanthropist handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars? It is a drop in the bucket.
The reality is that the haves do not care enough about the have-nots in this country to fix this with voluntary donations. This weekend, hundreds of people (one of them yours truly, with any luck) will buy a $300 video game console so they can get a $50 rebate. Ignacio Godinez Lopez is probably going to look for a new place for his wife to get the dialysis treatments he can’t afford.1
Feeling what my fiancé likes to call “white liberal guilt”2 about this fact is pointless. The onus to fix this should not be placed on the individual. Martyrdom is a deeply unhealthy mindset, psychologically speaking. Moreover, a tiny set of people inflicting undue suffering upon themselves will not solve a problem that stretches nationwide.
In a sane world, perhaps fewer people would be able to afford that LCD TV, or a computer powerful enough to stream YouTube in HD. But Mr. Lopez would be able to spend a few more years with his wife.
The similarities to a Ponzi scheme are not coincidental. But there is a difference here. The top of this food chain is comprised of a huge network of people and organizations who provide a service to society—hospitals, doctors, caretakers and shelters.
Which is better for our nation: $2.6 million dollars in a hospital’s hands, or $2.6 million in jewelry on Ruth Madoff’s hands?
-
Yes, I know the clinic has offered to pay for three months at some other hospital after they close. That’s not much time, all things considered.
-
He’s white, so don’t play that race card—though it is a pretty racist thing to say. (It’s also pretty funny.)
