The Nature of Charity

I would like to once again begin with a personal story, if you will indulge me. A while back, a friend asked to borrow money. He has an addiction to alcohol and tobacco, while not wanting permanent employment for reasons far too complicated to go into at present.

Naturally, since he wanted money and I knew that he would spend it irresponsibly, I turned him down. Of course, my friend was not happy about this at all. When I explained my reasoning that I knew that he would spend the money on tobacco and alcohol, he volunteered to show me his receipt afterwards, to prove that he did not buy them. This was not good enough for me. I tried to explain to him that I could not, in good conscience, give him the money, knowing that he would use his own money to buy tobacco and alcohol, and then spend my money for food. I told him that he should spend his money on food, and then I would help him buy the food that he could not afford.

We reached a stalemate: I would not enable his habits, and he would not prioritize his own health. A good friend does not fund someone else’s self-destruction. In the end, he was left to find another way to get what he wanted and needed. He is still my friend, but a good friend does not help someone harm themselves. We still keep in touch, and nothing else has changed.

The Make America Healthy Again movement, or MAHA, spearheaded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, now forbids many snacks, cakes, sodas, and chips from being purchased with government assistance.

Of note is that the money for this food does not just appear out of thin air, but comes from taxpayers, which is then funnelled into these same companies that do not have the health of the American people at heart. Health is one of the best investments that can be made. This is why milk should be prioritised over soda when it comes to limited funds.

One of the main arguments that I have seen from my side of the aisle is that those on welfare manipulate the system. While that does happen, I do not believe that it is nearly as widespread as some people want to believe. Most people on government assistance are trying to improve themselves. It is the small outliers that tip the scales severely and make it so that it is harder for people who actually need help to get it.

This situation is a major problem of public health; these companies prey on short-term pleasure as opposed to longterm gains. The immediate joy of a soda is good, but the lasting effects of milk on the body are better.

I am more than willing to help someone out, but since I work hard for my money, I want to spend it effectively. If someone has money to buy soda, but not milk, I cannot help. That might seem heartless, but God has made me a steward of the resources that He gave me. If I spent money on soda instead of milk, I would be a poor steward of my own finances. In my humble opinion, the same basic principle applies. Also, these same companies get a lot of subsidies, and it is no secret that this change takes away money for lobbying.

I pay all of the money in taxes that I legally owe, but if that money is used irresponsibly, the government is a poor steward of the resources and authority that we entrusted them with. They should work for us, not the corporations, and I suspect that since their coffers are not as full, lobbying will be harder. Combine this with other dietary changes that may be coming to school lunch rooms and military bases, and these companies have a lot to lose.