Poll: Do you believe that liberals advocate government sanctioned charity for the less fortunate?

It seems that some believe that liberals stand for government sanctioned charity at best and at worst, more government control of the individual.





Is anyone aware that liberals are in favor of the freedoms that the framers of the constitution envisioned. The framers stood for individual liberty. However, this liberty was only a person's right so much as long as he did not infringe on another person's liberty.





Example:


It was at one time thought that a person should have fire protection if they so chose. It was that person's responsibility to pay for fire protection for their property. If they chose not to incur this expense, than they understood that their house would likely burn if they themselves could not save it.





Eventually, as cities became more dense, people started to notice that houses would not just burn themselves down independently. The fires would spread to other houses. Pretty soon, entire neighborhoods and cities burned to the ground (see San Francisco and Chicago).





It was liberals who advocated for fire protection as a public good. Thus, if there was one irresponsible property owner, they would not have the power to burn down other people's property.





Ever since the late 19th century, liberals have noticed places within society where in which protecting the welfare of everyone amounted to a far better societal solution than leaving individuals to fend for themselves whether it be sanitation service, food and drug inspection, police protection, fire companies, interstate maintenance, or even healthcare.





Liberals basically seek solutions that generate greater safety and prosperity for Americans. Liberals (including the President) want very much so to make a lot of money, but believe laissez faire capitalism is not the way to go about this aim.





Do people believe that liberals advocate government sanctioned charity for the less fortunate?|||No, liberals do not advocate "government sanctioned charity" and never have. The true liberal agenda is universal cooperative social participation and benefit. It does not involve "taking something away from one and giving it to another" as conservatives so incorrectly yet stubbornly insist. It involves nothing more than inclusion and protection of contributory value. The conservative idea that liberty is "not a guarantee of success" is patently absurd and logically self-cancelling - If the conservative proposes a 'free' society in which 'success is not guaranteed' then my response is, No thanks, I'll take my chances with weapons instead because your proposal is no more favorable than that and I would rather lose fighting than lose incapacitated at your game playing by your rules.|||Thus, if there was one irresponsible property owner,that line says it all,1 idiot among liberals,all you libs think the same way.





Taking from some and giving to others is communism and yes liberals think government should steal 1s property and give it away|||Charity is just privatized welfare where some get it but most don't.





Resisting national health care creates the need for medical charity in the first place. Fighting national health care in favor of creating medical charity is pure insanity.|||You got your facts wrong. Fire departments were well in place long before either the Chicago or San Francisco fires. Now firemen work 3 days a week. Get paid for sleeping, retire at 50, and make more in retirement than they did on the job. All thanks to stupid liberals running the show.|||Liberals like giving to charity as long as they're using someone elses money..|||I BELIEVE THAT REPIGS CARE FOR SELF AND WAR.