Regarding your thought, “I think that the government can provide a useful service of co-ordinating that equitable giving…” you and I would probably have to agree to disagree on that. I think the least thing we need is government involved in this area in any way. For two reasons; one is that they simply don’t do it well. Secondly is that it never ends up with their being as uninvoled as they are supposed to be. For the sake of the truly needy, let’s keep government out of it.

Again, I’ll be interested to know your thoughts after reading the articles I’ve written specifically on this topic.

At the risk of losing my libertarian credentials, I think that the government can provide a useful service of co-ordinating that equitable giving, but it doesn’t need to handle the money and allow politicians to steal the credit for other people’s giving.

My suggestion, at least as a baby step toward less socialist society, is that we replace our current tax-and-spend safety net with tax-credit driven private charity. Even if the tax rate remained unchanged (which it shouldn’t), merely removing the money from the political pipeline would have all manner of social benefits (none of them centrally engineered):

* Though coaxed into giving, the givers would have choices about where, which would give them influence over what strings might be attached (e.g. job training, hearing sermons, quitting alcohol, relocating etc.).

* Religious people could give so that the glory would go to their chosen God, not their elected politicians.

*Non-religious people could keep their money out of “faith-based” charities, keeping all of the glory for themselves.

* Both could be freely achieved without gov’t either establishing or inhibiting religion. That’s because a tax-credit seeking populace *is* a wall of separation between church and state.

* Knowing that contributors have choices, charities would need to compete to deliver primary benefits (food, shelter medicine etc) and side benefits (social influence) most economically.

* Recipients would have some choices too.

* Knowing that contributors have choices, recipients would be more inclined to be grateful than when gov’t mandates their “due”.

* In choosing where to give (and receiving feedback therefrom), givers would become more aware of their community’s needs and their money’s good effects. This would activate more empathy than any tax man could.

* Empathy and gratitude stimulate one another, knitting society together. This is the exact opposite of the mutual resentment engendered by politically corrupt tax-and-patronize system we have today.

I am glad you are planning on writing more articles on this subject matter and will then publish them; even if it takes the form of a booklet, rather than a full size book.

From the comment that you made, regarding discussing the articles, does that mean we can look forward to you speaking on this subject as well? If so, will you just speak in your home state or nationally?

I cannot, of course, speak for anyone else, however, it is my opinion that with your knowledge of the subject matter, together with your excellent speaking ability and being able to win people over to your side of a discussion, that you should go national, (heck, go internationally), with the message of these articles. People need to be informed . . .

Just a thought.

Best wishes on your continued success.