I think it's kind of ironic that you mention how his charity isn't 100% altruistic, but then juxtapose it with "social safety nets" - by which, I assume, you mean tax-funded welfare, which is forced on people by government and has nothing altruistic about it on any level.
Actual altruism is very rare. The level at which it exists in the United States is nowhere near sufficient to solve this country's homelessness problem. By all means, write inspiring news stories about pure generosity when it appears, but this is not one of those times. This is a man who looks at our collective unwillingness to help our most needy and sees a religious opportunity.
Some voters support safety nets out of a sense of altruism. Others do it for selfish reasons; they simply don't enjoy living next to homeless people. Still more - like myself - see housing as a fundamental human right we are not properly addressing. The motive by which people join this cause doesn't matter to me, as long as the result fulfills our citizens' basic needs and asks nothing in return from them. If a majority of the country agrees with me that poverty is a serious problem, then we'll all chip in to solve it.
> Some voters support safety nets out of a sense of altruism.
It cannot be called altruism. People you're referring to aren't giving their resources out of free will - they support government taking other people's resources, under threat of violence (which the government has monopoly on) and redistributing it to others.
> housing as a fundamental human right
How can a product of someone else's labour can be a human right?
>How can a product of someone else's labour can be a human right?
Quite easily. Access to clean water isn't free, nor is safety or freedom (of religion, to own property, whatever). Enough people agree that these are a human right, so they are financed by the collective, regardless of how much the recipient contributed by paying taxes.
If you see it from his perspective it is as altruistic an action as is possible for a person to take.
He is providing a services to help people in some day to day way. While he is providing that kindness he is taking the time to save them from being tortured by fire monsters forever. Also a very altruistic action, if he is right about the fire monsters that action is really about the only altruistic action that is not trivial and temporary.
Perspective is important, if he was poking their eyes out to save them from fire monsters that's one thing but feeding people and making sure they are safe and happy seems pretty legit to me
well people are very generous with the money of other people.
i have had more than automatic monthly donation to charities yet I am always disappointed when I run into people who think it is the government's job. giving and helping others is everyone's job. we would not need the government to do it if we all gave up that lame excuse
