When I made my last post
I was too vague, I DO want an interfering state (you cant have both and you cant sit on the fence, as my original post seems to suggest)
I want an interfering state (that’s the side I must land on) because charity, needs to be organised and be just, consistent and fair... we cant rely on human altruism, I really wouldn’t rely on it for much.
Government is the organisation of masses, it is the structure of civilization... so I would move our moral responsibility as a society to help the weak into an official government regulated capacity.... I mean what about crime? "We don’t need the government for that, we can just police ourselves, you watch my house and Ill watch yours..." it just wouldnt work because people are not to be trusted.
We can only combat crime and greed, working together as a collective (argh! - that word is tainted with far left connotations)... and in the end this question, like a lot of political philosophy, comes down to 'what is human nature'
Any way wanted to set that straight I'm on holiday till friday, nice talkin to you Earth Guru... I look forward to future arguments, I'm sure (me and Mtmymd Vs. You and swivel)