> If it did happen, that's another problem to be fixed.
Adding problems disguised as solutions is exactly the issue I'm speaking to. You don't actually satisfy needs in this model, you just end up chastising your subjects with "look at what we've already given you, shut up and take it because there are others who need help too". This incites division and factionalism because you've constructed a market which forces people to compete against each other for charity.
Charity is injustice, as Chris Hedges says, because charity demands a cost from the recipient. Beyond this competition, we also can be confident acknowledging that charity develops dependence, which is again the opposite of sustainable self-determinism.
Adding problems disguised as solutions is exactly the issue I'm speaking to. You don't actually satisfy needs in this model, you just end up chastising your subjects with "look at what we've already given you, shut up and take it because there are others who need help too". This incites division and factionalism because you've constructed a market which forces people to compete against each other for charity.
Charity is injustice, as Chris Hedges says, because charity demands a cost from the recipient. Beyond this competition, we also can be confident acknowledging that charity develops dependence, which is again the opposite of sustainable self-determinism.