Taking a survey of Vox Popoli’s commenters at the proprietor’s request, I ran into this question respecting the most ideal charity case imaginable- that of an underemployed civil engineer on hard times due to circumstances relatively out of his control.
In your own words, please explain briefly why you do or do not feel sympathy for Mark Sperling?
Stony Brook University survey
Sympathy has limited application to the situation. I actually feel a great deal of sympathy for him, having spent most of my adult life underemployed. My mirror neurons are currently ginning up memories that remind me of the listless despair wonderfully portrayed by the actor in the picture.
But feelings are one thing and money is another, and politics is yet another. Frankly speaking, the world is full of con men hiding easily behind such abstractions as “Christian charity” and “hard luck”. I don’t give money to panhandlers; If I don’t know a man personally, so that I can’t judge his situation for myself, my cash stays in my wallet. It is hypocritical, absurd, and altogether crass to actually VOTE to force someone else to provide charity to con men, abstractions, and maybe one or two deserving cases (who, under taxation, would probably be paying into this charity themselves). If I believe in charity, and I do, then I should spend my charity money in the most efficient way possible (on the so-called “deserving poor”).