It's worth pointing out that before the State became the repository of "charity" in our nation, a lot more people were "seen" and helped privately. It has nothing to do with knowing each other personally. You are right that social pressure has a lot to do with it, but in any civilization, social pressure has a lot more to do with civilized behavior than laws do. Until the laws take over.

Private charity is not perfect, and I've never claimed it was. People slip between the cracks. But people slip between the cracks now.

When charity becomes a political duty instead of a personal one, the very concept of charity is poisoned. I don't think most people see what this has done to our society.

It is now almost impossible to separate voluntary assistance from government assistance in many people's minds, and most people see it as interchangable.

In countries where Buddhist monks have their bowls out, one can gain merit by putting food or money in the bowl. I'm sure that the monks would do a lot better if a law was passed that people had to put a certain amount of money into the bowls under threats of fines and imprisonment. But where is the merit then?

Where is the moral value of charity that is done under threat?

If a group of good people come across needy persons, there is a natural urge to help them when and where they can. Simple charity to a grateful recipient makes everyone feel better, and there is natural good will between the donors and recipients.

Nowadays when a needy person receives government assistance, they have been taught that they are not getting charity, but an entitlement. In fact, they are taught that the concept of charity is demeaning, and every effort is made to disguise the aid as something the person has "earned." The needy are taught that this aid is theirs by right, and the recipient often begins to adopt this attitude, complaining bitterly and angrily if the aid is too small, or not forthcoming when expected. Worst of all, they are taught that this largesse is from the government alone, and from those representatives who have seen that they get it (remember them when you go to the voting booth!). They are taught to see nobody at all as the source of their aid beyond the Federal Treasury.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers (who, we may sometimes forget, also have to make ends meet) see their taxes going up, and the aid programs ballooning beyond all reason. Worst of all, he sees not benevolence and gratitude for his contributions, but an arrogance that was never there before. He is expected to be thankful that he is being made to contribute, and is informed that his place in society is to support such people whether he likes it or not, and if he wonders if it might be too much in some cases, he is abused and insulted for being a selfish, mean-spirited (the liberal favorite term) bastard.

In fact, the more taxes he pays, the more wealth he contributes, the more derision he receives.

Now, you tell me what kind of attitude is going to begin to develop on the part of the taxpayers toward the needy. Benevolence? Empathy? A sense of being linked together? Or resentment?

Which environment is really "dog eat dog?"