I don't believe that a large enough proportion of individual citizens, either on their own or through the “middlemen” of charities, would choose to contribute enough of their time, energy and money to fulfill those societal obligations with adequate scope, scale or financing. In our times, only government is able to do that. (That is not to say that government will do this perfectly, or with optimum efficiency. That depends on the people who legislate and manage the programs–and I know one group of people who recently have proven they are NOT qualified, or capable, or even particularly interested in running a high-functioning government.)

The root of it is this: Are we in this together, or is it each man for himself? The latter may have worked in the dark ages, but in modern civilization I simply believe that the imperative of humankind is to ensure the survival and sustenance of those least able to contribute themselves. Government, for all its flaws and for all the disagreements about how best to manage it, has long since been proven the best and most equitable vehicle for fulfilling that purpose.

Who could argue with that? However, since we have little evidence of “brains to use them wisely,” why should they be given more dollars? Let people use their own dollars in a way that seems best to them. It's called “freedom.” I can't claim that individuals are more intelligent than the government in spending their money. But at least there's no middleman.