Charity, morality, and government

What is morality? What is charity? What should the role of government be in either? My position is that government ought have no role at all in charity, and only a minimal role in morality.

Let me first define the role that I believe FEDERAL and STATE government should have in morality. The FEDERAL and STATE government SHOULD enforce the respect of each citizen's life, property, and liberty. That is ALL. No one citizen's life, property, or liberty should abridge another's in any material form. This shall not be construed to apply to the mental distress caused to one citizen by another citizen's exercise of his life, property, or liberty. In other words, if Joe is offended by Bill's attire, the fact that Bill has offended Joe is NOT an abridgement of Joe's life, property, or liberty.

LOCAL government is where morality may most be defined. A LOCAL government is by nature comprised of LOCAL citizenry elected ONLY by LOCAL citizenry. As such, restriction on different conducts and actions by individuals most properly belongs at this level of government where the citizens have the most direct input. Even so, local government may only go to a point that equally preserves the greatest liberty of the individual amongst other individuals. IE: Certain zoning ordinances that are needed in order that property values are preserved. Yet the ordinances may NOT address matters of taste...IE color of house etc.

CHARITY is the province of the private sector ONLY!!! NO level of government may engage in charitable acts. It is NOT possible for a government to engage in charity. The government in itself engages in the production of no goods. The government has nothing to sell that it has produced. The only money that the government possesses is that of it's citizens. That money, collected in various taxes and fees, is taken from the individual citizen under threat of force. If I do not pay my taxes, the government may seize my property and deny me of my liberty. By definition, taking money from one by force to give to another is not charity, it is robbery of one, and it makes the other a receiver of stolen goods.

Now, to be honest, I am ok with social safety nets - but it is not charity. What I can't abide is people living their entire lives on those safety nets. As a further matter, I advocate that after a certain amount of time, an individual receiving assistance must work at some job for their local or state government until they are gainfully employed. In this way, some value is given for the money spent. In the matter of international disaster assistance, I argue that the recipient country be obligated to give us some value in return. IE - We get oil at a lower price for a certain time, We get military outpost rights etc.

The Ratchet Effect

How many of you have ever used a ratcheting tie down or a ratchet wrench?? For those that have, you are aware that the ratcheting mechanism allow action in a single direction only. In the economic/political world, there is also a phenomenon known as 'The Ratchet Effect.' This phenomenon is observable by looking at the history of our government. The quick and dirty is thus: Once a tax, liberty, power, etc. is ceded to a government, it is almost never given back. There are a few notable exceptions such as prohibition and the occasional tax cut.

The question is - As more of our life is taken from the individual in the form of taxes, as more liberty is taken in the form of laws - Where does it end?? Each little surrender of life, property, and liberty is a click in the ratchet.