![“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of… sufferers.” - James Madison [560x560 - 297KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/6yDNyY.png){kind=link}
Denying people the right to suffer the outcome of bad decisions is the same as encouraging people to make bad decisions
There is a case to be made for charity. Going back to this time period, it wasn't a young widow's fault if her husband suddenly died. But back then people had larger families and the church as well.
Charity: Widows and orphans get money, food, goods, care, etc. Young men get opportunities to work their tails off.
Welfare: We give people money and take it away from people who start to get somewhere.
Not the governments business. Governments can't deal with individual situations.
But in your case recall that the young widow poisoned her young husband and the local community knows it but not the central government.
Discretion is a favorable variable that charity can impose.
(post is archived)