1000 points of light versus taxation concept and 'the family' claiming to be chosen.

I heard this referenced recently on the news. Years ago the comment was made by George Bush 41 by arguing that people with money should help those in need instead of government helping people with social legislation.

Basically it falls into the idea of 'the family' that says some people receive money because they are best able to choose where that money goes, and then they spread that money out.

The problem is it is a money centric view of things. It says people that are able to get the most money should distribute that money where they see best. But the acquisition of money is not done, in most cases, by the best attributes of a person. So that distribution is to friends not to people that might actually be in need.

Money is acquired many ways, and even as far back as Plato people recognized that the most selfish people, and sometimes the most ruthless are better able to acquire money. It is not always true of coarse, but in many cases the drive to be rich is not the best attributes of humanity. In that, those people do not have the best claim of where that money should be used.

So 'the family' argument that there should be no government, and private contributions should sustain people in need has many flaws. When looking at it in practice, we see many of the 'contributions' are actually made to maintain the power of the person that contributes.

So many people with money give money to groups that just maintain the power or image of those with money, in that it does not seem to be any form of helping society.

In governmental programs, including through taxation, especially where there is taxation on a person that has received more money then they have earned, society decides where that money is spent, not just a few people.

The only claim to people with money being the only deciders of where the resources of a society goes, is them claiming they are special, so 'the family' created that idea by saying they were chosen. The need for claiming to be chosen is the defense of having things outside of moderation. In that the idea of claiming to be chosen actually proceeded from a need to justify what without that claim is unjustifiable. Literally speaking, they claim 'chosen' because they know without that thought of privilege they have to face their own acts of injustice.

It is true that charity to organizations that help people is a very good thing, and I do not think even the least bad thoughts of anyone that gives to charity for the sake of charity and to help people. But many people give to charity only if it also furthers their own ends, and in that it is not charity, nor is it meant to help many, but to further ones own situation. This is the problem with 1000 points of light doctrine, if it was real charity it would not contain the need for control within the giving.

of being on the "charitable" end of their agenda. They actually screwed up my life more than it was before. And it probably had a great deal to do with my mother's death from a drug overdose as well. That is the kind of charity that people should stay far away from. Seriously.