Quote Originally Posted by Kendal View Post
No matter how much at fault a person may be for their misfortune, it does not affect my moral obligation to help him. And if his misfortune is in part due to a failure on my part then my obligation is greater.
While I can agree with some of your points, and I can understand your desire to help people, this statement is something I cannot agree with. I've been arguing against this kind of thing for years here, and it still goes on.

Using a strict interpretation of your comment, if I should come home to find someone ransacking my home because he has no money, I should not only allow him to continue, I should help him by pointing out the more valuable items in my home, or the location of any money I have stashed away. And if he should stumble over a carelessly placed box and hurt himself, I should contact the rescue services and have him taken to the hospital for treatment at my expense, of course.

Now I know you will say that this is a rather extreme interpretation, but how is it any different from that same man being given goods and services, paid for with my tax dollars, while he sits at home watching Oprah or Judge Judy or any of the half-dozen premium channels he subscribes to,on his wide-screen, high-definition, plasma TV? All while contacting his friends on his high-end cell phone to tell them about the latest government give-away program they should get into.

Are there truly poor people in this country? Absolutely. Despite two hundred plus years of effort, there are still poor Americans. Despite more than ten thousand years of effort around the world, there are still poor people. There will always be poor people. Many, even most, may be poor through no fault of their own. I feel sorry for them. I don't, however, feel responsible for them. I don't feel any 'moral' imperative to help them. The only 'moral' responsibility I have is to help myself, and my family, to keep our heads above water without dragging someone else down with us.