I disagree that the role of a government is simply to “protect the rights of its citizens.”

On what other grounds do you grant government greater power? To accomplish what? Can you justify this morally for me?

There again, when Americans elect a president they want him to “lead” their country. In Europe electors want politicians to “run” their country – and part of that is to efficiently manage funding to others.

But since the Right to Life means the right to your own property, nobody can therefore have the Right to redistribute your property. The fact that governments have the power to do so is not a justification for the actions they take.

Charity does not begin at home, when it does it is not charity.

Why not? Why is it charity to give money to foreigners but not your own people?

And money expropriated and handed to others can hardly be called charity. This is like the mafia’s euphemism of “protection money”.

I think Europeans actually see their goverments as being responsible, in part, for coping with the needs of others.

No doubt some people do see the government as responsible for this. But 1. if anything, a government MUST proritise the needs of its own citizens, and 2. just as no man is morally or legally obligated to support another, government logically and necessarily, CANNOT have be obligated to either.

Don’t forget that Americans give less per person to charity that any other people measured in per capita income. That includes government and individual giving.

I would like to see some statistical backing for this, but needless to say that charity (ultimately) always comes from private wealth. If it wasn’t for private wealth accumulated by personal effort, charity would be impossible. The fact that government takes private wealth through a variety of means and passes it on to other countries (at the expense of its own) doesn’t make the charity “public” or “national”. Indeed, charity taken by force is no charity at all.

There again, when Americans elect a president they want him to “lead” their country. In Europe electors want politicians to “run” their country – and part of that is to efficiently manage funding to others.

Charity does not begin at home, when it does it is not charity. I think Europeans actually see their goverments as being responsible, in part, for coping with the needs of others. Don’t forget that Americans give less per person to charity that any other people measured in per capita income. That includes government and individual giving.