Note that I am not here arguing merits of the question, but one reason why government gets involved in charitable functions is the difference between "should" and "shall." It is not a matter of money, because the money is there all the while - either in the hands of government through taxation or in the hands of individuals or organizations if not taxed. It also is not a matter of efficiency, because in most cases a non-governmental agency can do things more efficiently than a government bureau.
When we see a tragedy, either of a natural or social nature, we sometimes think, "Someone ought to do something," and we hope someone has the desire and time and resources to do it - but it may or may not happen. However, if it is a matter of law or governmental policy, then the principle is there that it "shall" happen (if the folks involved do their duty). It may not be done as fast or efficiently, but there does exist an established entity whose duty it is to do it, as opposed to someone else who might do it - and that is why we see so much charity rolled onto the backs of government.
No comments:
Post a Comment