dvdjs . . .
Acting out of concern may include organizing to effect a government response. It’s a free country.
Why is it a “free country” for you to impose statist-directed charities, . . . .
. . . but you seem confused by the equally “free-country” conclusion of ridicule of this?
“Acting out of concern” is exactly WHY many people want Government MINIMIZED regarding these “charity” issues.
So your statment dvdjs . . .
I am healthy, but act out of concern for the sick.
I am not hungry, but act out of concern for those who are.
I do not want for clothes, but act out of concern for those who do.
I am not imprisoned, but act out of concern for those who are.
It is pretty much what is expected of us. I am not sure why there is a matter for ridicule.
. . . just means you are a taxpayer?
Or are you really doing this over and ABOVE taxes on your own accord?
(Look. If you don’t want to answer that, I am OK. It is none of my concern what you do or don’t do personally.
But I am much more concerned with the “definitions” and principles of your argument here.
If you are defining forced Government taking and re-distribution to causes Government may or may not have in common with individual citizens, as “charity” and “concern” I am going to have a problem with that definition. At least if that is ALL there is to it. You need to clarify what you are saying instead of arguing with enthymemes-where you furtively half say something. Then when people call you on it, pretend that is not what you meant.)