Question for ACists about charity/welfare

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people think that charities that give condoms to teenagers are morally reprehensible a lot of people think that charities that give clean needles to heroin addicts are evil. Are these charities more evil or less evil than free hookers and blow? Is it only the things you agree with that you think should be funded through force?