We tried it for the first couple thousand years. Turns out it really sucked, which is why 100% of civilizations (in which you’d have any desire to live) figured out alternatives.
We tried what exactly? I think the mideval church, for all its well known bads, did a great job at encouraging charity for the less fortuned. Americans tend to be some of the most charitably giving on the planet as well.
The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need instead of governmental violence is always: but someone might starve. Why is it preferable to steal under threat of imprisonment/death rather than let society funnel alms to where it is most needed, where most is dictated by those that actually give?
I thought the medieval church was adept at funnelling money towards the church - that's why so many Roman Catholic churches are dripping in gold and jewels. There was also the racket of them selling "indulgences" - salvation for a price.
> Luther did an excellent job of correcting that at the expense of a schism.
Well, that was pretty much at the end of the medieval period, so for the vast majority of medieval times, the church let poor people starve and die whilst hoarding money, power and land. The church only really started to embrace charity and social care from around the 12th century or so. If we say that the medieval period was approximately 500AD to 1500AD, then it's a stretch to claim that the church was a bastion of social care.
> The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need
Well you're kind of begging the question in your proposal. Sure, if we could ensure (the word you used) that needs would be met by private charity, that would be great. But the government IMO is a useful backstop to prevent the absolute worst case outcomes, and there's no reason private charity can't stack on top of that: which indeed it does.
If requesting private charity is sufficient to solve the problem (let's say... homelessness?), then why isn't it solved already? Is your contention that if people didn't have to pay taxes, they'd charitably give enough to solve the problems that today's combination of government and private charity cannot? It seems like if we're going to charity our way out of these problems (not that I believe that's necessarily the right directional solution), we need at least both of the forms we currently have.
I personally have not met anyone ever who believes private charity is undesirable, so not sure what change you're proposing.
