Comments on: Xenophobia is Poor Public Policy http://cafehayek.com/2007/02/xenophobia_is_p.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Amoxicillin and clavulanate potassium 875 mlg. http://cafehayek.com/2007/02/xenophobia_is_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-55903 Amoxicillin and clavulanate potassium 875 mlg. Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:29:39 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3986#comment-55903 <strong>Amoxicillin soar throat....</strong> Amoxicillin.... Amoxicillin soar throat….

Amoxicillin….

]]> By: happyjuggler0 http://cafehayek.com/2007/02/xenophobia_is_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-10058 happyjuggler0 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:12:30 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3986#comment-10058 <p>Excepting possibly basic scientific research, government simply ought not be giving money to charities to begin with. Therein lies the whole source of the problem, not xenophobia, although xenophobia may indeed by a different problem.</p> Excepting possibly basic scientific research, government simply ought not be giving money to charities to begin with. Therein lies the whole source of the problem, not xenophobia, although xenophobia may indeed by a different problem.

]]> By: faultolerant http://cafehayek.com/2007/02/xenophobia_is_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-10062 faultolerant Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:50:24 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3986#comment-10062 <p>I fail to see what Mr. Young is so upset about. But I do agree that private charities shouldn't be accepting state money - full stop.</p> <p>If a charity accepts funds then those funds may come with strings. There are private donors who attach conditions to their donations to charities. Why is it that the State can't do so?</p> <p>If you don't like the conditions of the donation, then don't accept the donation. That's a pretty simple calculation. Maybe it's too simple......</p> <p>The hoary canard that charities will be required to become "xenophobix" is utter rubbish. The term "xenophobia" was applied by the author and is an emotional perspective, not one based in reason.</p> I fail to see what Mr. Young is so upset about. But I do agree that private charities shouldn't be accepting state money – full stop.

If a charity accepts funds then those funds may come with strings. There are private donors who attach conditions to their donations to charities. Why is it that the State can't do so?

If you don't like the conditions of the donation, then don't accept the donation. That's a pretty simple calculation. Maybe it's too simple……

The hoary canard that charities will be required to become "xenophobix" is utter rubbish. The term "xenophobia" was applied by the author and is an emotional perspective, not one based in reason.

]]> By: python http://cafehayek.com/2007/02/xenophobia_is_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-10061 python Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:22:23 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3986#comment-10061 <p>What year was it when "limited government" became "limiting government"?</p> What year was it when "limited government" became "limiting government"?

]]> By: atr http://cafehayek.com/2007/02/xenophobia_is_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-10060 atr Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:02:51 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3986#comment-10060 <p>IF this law would reduce the amount of state (taxpayer) money distributed to charities, it's a good law.</p> IF this law would reduce the amount of state (taxpayer) money distributed to charities, it's a good law.

]]> By: Robert Coté http://cafehayek.com/2007/02/xenophobia_is_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-10063 Robert Coté Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:02:40 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3986#comment-10063 <p>Better example of poor public policy is one of labelling legislation that taxpayer money goes where intended as xenophobic. By this logic voting requirements are xenophobic. There's nothing unusual about state monies coming with strings attached and nothing unusual about state benefits being dispersed based on qualifications. </p> <p>The issue of charitable support stripped of the inflammatory rhetoric is a legitmate public policy concern. At one end is taxing charities and the other open coffers. My only observation is that practical government is a messy business ill suited to absolutes. </p> Better example of poor public policy is one of labelling legislation that taxpayer money goes where intended as xenophobic. By this logic voting requirements are xenophobic. There's nothing unusual about state monies coming with strings attached and nothing unusual about state benefits being dispersed based on qualifications.

The issue of charitable support stripped of the inflammatory rhetoric is a legitmate public policy concern. At one end is taxing charities and the other open coffers. My only observation is that practical government is a messy business ill suited to absolutes.

]]>