first off: the other posters here are right, most of the question was meant to knock you off your block, so to speak, and a broad base of concern does indicate a revenue source for the project(s). there are just a few (long) things I wanted to add, if you'll indulge:
PRice:
The state is always force, but that's not mental illness, that's the absence of truth.
Well
I'm going to argue that one (infact, I registered to do just that) you
still need to recognize that the state is just a group of people who
call themselves "government" and deify themselves by saying they
magically do what we
obviously can't handle. Then when you factor
into play the near messianic vision of themselves they usually have
(dubbya and stalin come to mind) a fact that is reinforced by a reality
composed entirely of the cult of personality that needs to be built
around them in order to justify their position relative to alternatives
and to competitors. The cult is more or less a projection from the
realm of celebrity worship but that's a whole other can of worms I
won't open. Then you need to factor in the unconscious drive to dominate other individuals, etc. At any rate, the list goes on as you can imagine. The take
home point is this: The composite we draw up here is of someone not
only narcissistic but sounding a little like a truly dysfunctional
individual. If it's not mental illness, it ain't that far off (not a
well-adjusted individual at the very least)
Nathan Miller:
I'd answer by asking what her solution to the mentally ill is.
Answer: The state.
"How will the state fund its program?"
Taxes
"Do you pay taxes?"
Yes.
"So, you are saying that you should look after them also."
but
an important thing to remember is that by donating the more charitable
elements in society are basically penalizing themselves by lowering
their material purchasing power in order to commit support to a moral
cause, something I think we all should admire in an individual.
However, the immoral person out for their own bit has it rewarded by
allowing those who care for others to foot the bill when funding leads
to a worsened situation. This is actually solved inside the market by
deferring most of the operational costs through alternative income
sources (ask paul newman) and preference for material donations from
their centers of production (thus reducing the burden on the
charitable) allowing the charitable to make up the difference. It's
just I think that's something that gets lost by most people (and I mean
most people everywhere)
Jason Orr:
Something you might want to keep in mind, since you're going to be answering "private charity" to so many of these kinds of questions, is that individuals aren't the only people who give to charity. It might seem unreasonable to think that the average household is going to budget out a portion of its income for the insane, and a bit for the homeless, and a bit for charity schools, and a bit for helpless old people, and on and on and on.
good point but I'd just like to mention that a cooperative donation foundation can be established which handles those situations. A regular election of officials and a direct vote on budgeting decisions would solve the problem. If you're a church goin' guy I'm sure there would be all sorts of social causes to support and a cooperative foundation would be created in-market to facilitate the process. You just give it a good once over and say "yeah this looks like the kind of stuff I want to support, become a member of the co-op and from then on just pay attention to the newsletters and remember to keep up on your membership fees.
sorry for the long post, it's my first and I don't really have that much of an outlet for this stuff in my personal life.