"To Help Other People At All Times"

[SeattlePioneer]

Do Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to support government spending programs which profess to help other people?

[acco40]

No. Some will say that giving spare change to beggars helps them. Others feel that this just exacerbates their problem. Some are just cheap!

 

I feel a Scout should feel they should help other people at all times but exactly how that help is rendered is a personal decision.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[packsaddle]

Regarding beggars, there is an element of deception that is difficult to clearly identify. I was in a country which I will not identify. A friend was visiting. We encountered a poor woman who was begging for money to help her terribly maimed and crippled child. I had to stop my friend from giving her money. He just didn't understand.

 

Edit: answer to original question - you are obligated to pay your taxes and otherwise obey the law. You are free to politically oppose (or support) any program you feel is wrong (or right).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[TAHAWK]

Would that be an ethical question or a political question?

 

Would that be conserving the Nation's resources or expending them much faster than they are created? (A Scout is thrifty.)

 

Is a profession of good intent enough, even if you believe it?

[ScoutNut]

This has nothing to do with BSA programing - it should be under Issues and Politics.

[ntrog8r]

The "obligation" is for the individual Scout/scouter to provide help to others - not "to support" other people/programs "which profess to help" others...

 

I recognize a need that I am able to address, I help the person in need.

I see a homeless man sleeping in a culvert and winter is coming. What can I address and how? Do I provide blankets, canned food and a can opener/spoon, a ride to the shelter, a piece of canvas, money, job training/counseling, mental health diagnosis, a tip to local law enforcement, petition local government for support/assistance programs, develop a support group, work with local business owners to provide appropriate work (sweeping, cleaning the parking lot, moving boxes, lawn work, etc), give money/time to the local homeless shelter, or just drive on by and tell others about the poor guy living in the culvert?

Any of the above may be the appropriate response - even the last one. After all, I don't want my 8 year old directly interacting with a stranger, unsupervised, and would prefer they come to me and tell me what they saw - then we can work together to identify the issues and possible solutions.

 

Beggars, hmmm. My spouse is a giver - right there on the spot; I am not. I tend to think its OK that we have different responses to the same problem.

 

 

[packsaddle]

ntrog8r, In the place I was at that time, my liason warned me about the practice and had evidence that children had been intentionally maimed by a parent and sold or rented across the border for use by professional beggars in order to gain greater sympathy from their customers. Every cent given to this system supported the intentional harm to innocent children.

My companion saw things in the simplistic terms that our society has allowed him to enjoy. Real life in that place is not for the naive.

[Eagledad]

Folks have asked the same question with the scripture Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods.

 

I had a similar experience to Packsaddles while traveling through a very poor village on a Caribbean Island. A passenger on our bus started tossing quarters to the children walking home from school. The bus driver clearly showed his displeasure and once we were out of the village, he at the risk of loosing his tip, explained that the children only see the money for a moment because the adult close by will take it from them as soon as our bus is out of site, possibly to the childrens harm. Even worse, he said, only American dollars work on this island; quarters are just trinkets and have no value especially for the risk of the children.

 

Barry

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I reckon scouts and scouters have an obligation to help other people, and be thoughtful about how to do that well. Sometimes that might be done well by taxing ourselves to provide a consistent, reliable service that those in need can turn to. We do that often for fire and police and EMS and children's service agencies that respond to abuse and neglect, and we also do that with the National Guard and other disaster response teams.

 

I reckon those are good things for a few reasons. First, those services require expertise. Yeh can't rely on your neighbor havin' those skills. Second, those services must be provided in a timely manner, eh? No good for da police to respond next week to the intruder in your house today. So those trained folks have to be supported while they're "on call", and yeh have to maintain a consistent system with which to call 'em. Third, those things typically require more resources than small groups of individuals can provide out of pocket.

 

Now yeh might consider other kinds of systems and be thoughtful about what works best, but I think we have an obligation to support those kinds of services. For everyone, not just those who live in gated communities and can afford private security. Help other people at all times means tithing/taxing our own resources to help the retired military widow who is barely gettin' by, not just helpin' the old lady we see across the street. And that can mean havin' systems in place that she can access for help without begging from strangers.

 

In small rural communities, I admit yeh can get by with volunteers for a lot of stuff. Volunteer fire departments work, because there just aren't that many calls so local folks can get trained and respond on a part-time basis. In those places, I think as scouters and scouts we have an obligation to support those volunteers, eh? Give money, help with da fundraiser, and volunteer ourselves if we have da skills and time. In bigger towns it can't be done by volunteers. Too many calls, too much specialty trainin'.

 

For those things that aren't timely, don't require expertise, and only need limited resources, I'd hope that general neighborliness and good citizenship would suffice without the need for government programs. That's what Eagle Projects are for.

 

For da rest, I think we all struggle to figure out how to do it best. But at it's heart, I reckon it's a partnership, eh? We want to tax ourselves so that da National Guard and Army Corps of Engineers can be there to help folks in the flood. We also want to volunteer to help fill sandbags or provide first aid or assist with da cleanup, or, if we can't volunteer, we want to contribute to Red Cross and other charities that support and equip our fellow citizen volunteers. It takes both.

 

What I don't think we can do and still live by da Oath and Law is to not step up ourselves. So it's not OK to take da liberal out and just pay taxes and expect "the government" to do it. Governments do things poorly unless their citizens are in the trenches. And it's not OK to take da modern conservative out and just slash contributions to government programs without bein' thoughtful about where paid, on-call, full-time resources are necessary and best supported by taxes, while still stepping up ourselves with our charitable time and dollars.

 

Beavah

 

 

[BS-87]

I think that Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to denounce government programs which provide for the "general welfare".

 

This is because Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to help other people at all times. They do not put this responsibility onto anyone else but themselves, and so commit to personal actions which provide aid to others whenever that Scout or Scouter is reasonably able.

 

It would be irresponsible of a Scout or Scouter to shirk their obligation by promoting indirect "general welfare" programs.

[TAHAWK]

At times, it has been thought to be OK to promote the general welfare: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare, do hereby ordain this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

We are about making good citizens. Citizens do function as part of government.

 

Promoting the GENERAL welfare is part of the mission of government.

 

And this thread is political.

[Beavah]

This is because Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to help other people at all times. They do not put this responsibility onto anyone else but themselves, and so commit to personal actions which provide aid to others whenever that Scout or Scouter is reasonably able.

 

Yah, hmmm...

 

I think that's right, if yeh limit it to responsibility, eh? We have a personal responsibility to help others.

 

Now, da mechanism for helpin' others is often to pay people who have expertise that we don't have to do the helping. So we give money to Red Cross or our church or other charities as part of our duty to help other people at all times. And we vote ourselves taxes to pay for da National Guard and fire, police, EMS, and all da rest as part of that same duty.

 

So part of helpin' others at all times is providing financial support so ARC can provide shelters, so that da Feds can fight forest fires that endanger others homes and stuff like that. I'm too old and don't have da expertise to be a smoke jumper, and I don't live in an area that is likely to ever be threatened by wildfire, but I'm happy to support that service as part of my responsibility to help others in need.

 

So of course we help others help people, in addition to our own personal contributions of time. We give to FOS in addition to volunteering ourselves, so that pros and camp staff are available to help others.

 

Citizenship doesn't mean we go it alone, eh? It means that we work problems together. Charity begins at home, sure, but it doesn't end there. It would be irresponsible and contrary to our Oath not to support (appropriate) programs that provided for da "indirect" general welfare.

 

B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BS-87]

TAHAWK - The general welfare clause does not provide for general welfare programs.

 

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-general-welfare-clause-and-stoned-teenagers/

 

A good analogy about the general welfare clause conflicting with the actual enumerated articles of the Constitution.

 

Thomas Jefferson explained, Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

 

 

[Hal_Crawford]

"Would that be an ethical question or a political question?"

 

Wouldn't it be great if ethics served as the foundation for politics? Might be the death of political parties.

[TAHAWK]

When the OP asks if Scouts and Scouters have a duty to support government spending programs, he's opening up a discussion that has to be, in material part, about political issues.

 

You can defining "general welfare" to be "welfare" - the dole, to use an older, harsher-sounding noun. That's your right in a political discussion. I don't define "general welfare" that way. Neither did the Founders. I think of it as the general good of our country. Very appropriate in a political discussion to toss around ideas about what truly promotes "the general welfare." Like, is endlessly spending money we don''t have good for the country?

 

What powers Congress has to "promote the general welfare" is another question. As to that, the national power elites have been playing "Let's pretend" as long as I have been able to vote.

 

It can also, I think, be an ethical question. Is it ethical to tell working folks that they will get the benefit of the Social Security Tax they pay and paid (with after-tax dollars) when all Social Security has is file cabinets full of IOU's on a bankrupt government. (AKA "unfunded mandates" that vastly exceed the official national debt). The D's and the R's spent all the money to avoid tough choices. There is nothing left to spend except what we can borrow or take from citizens by devaluing the currency, as we have been doing at an historic rate lately.

 

Jefferson is an interesting guy. I'm a D. We used to have Jefferson-Jackson dinners. Don't think anyone in power these days would be quoting Jefferson much. Too dangerous. Too "radical," to use the new media word for Jefferson's thinking.