Kinda like Ron Paul's campaign manager who get sick and died, he ended having the government pay over 400,000 dollars for his care before he died of pnuemonia, and then they decided to try "private charity" to cover his bills, the paulbots were able to come up with 30K for their big free market health care donation charity idea.
the libertarians don't pay period, they don't want to be taxed, and they won't contribute to charity, at least not to anywhere near the degree to sustain a charity based society to replace social spending. so knock the private charity crap off, we all know it won't work.
Theft is wrong, always. "Social spending" is a product of theft. No person has any moral or ethical obligation to give anything at all, so "replacing" the "social spending" is a red herring. And even those who insist that charity is of moral imperative would do well to consider just what is truly involved... and the unintended consequences of charity without responsibility.
The Tragedy Of American Compassion
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/compassion.htm
By Marvin Olasky
...Many in the poverty trade today would like us to believe that the difficulties and temptations people face now are somehow unique, more complicated and intractable than any in the past. But 17th, 18th, and 19th century America had it all: alcoholism, drug addiction, illegitimacy, crime, unemployment, abuse, social upheaval, grinding poverty. The crucial difference: those engaged in charity had a frank, clear-headed, unsentimental view of human nature - and they believed the problems were moral and spiritual ones, requiring moral and spiritual solutions.
Throughout our history, private, predominantly religious charities proliferated: ...literally hundreds of such groups that sprang up across the country ... The crucial understanding was simple yet profound: people were helped because other people took a personal interest in them.
And for decades, there was a consensus among those engaged in the work of these organizations, and among society at large: that some poor (destitute through no fault of their own) were deserving of help and others were not; that much poverty resulted when human beings, of their own free will, chose destructive paths (alcohol and vice); that such erring individuals should and could, with God's help, change course; that all able to work, must; that those who helped must give of their time, must give of their love, must give religious counsel and encouragement and admonition; that money alone, given indiscriminately, was poisonously destructive.
