That is a communist ideal that is like liberty a pipe dream.
I see Ethereal and I were correct from the outset. You are indeed quite ignorant about liberty, else you would not consider it a pipe dream.
Unsurprising also that you would be ignorant about charity, and imprudently deride it as a "failing."
Charity is not failure, nor is liberty a pipe dream. Liberty is a very real and very necessary condition for human life to reach its fullest flower. Charity is the culmination of liberty, and is predicated upon liberty. Where there is no liberty there is no charity.
Far from being failure, charity is liberty's victory over misfortune. Liberty is the choice of the free man to in his prosperity be generous to his less fortunate neighbors. Indeed, the United States is a living demonstration of this reality and this virtue, for not only does the United States government give more in foreign aid to the impoverished nations of the world, but United States citizens contribute more to charitable causes than any other nation. Liberty enables charity. Liberty encourages charity. Society does neither, and can do neither.
The flaw in the Marxist thesis (and your rhetoric is quite Marxist in nature, even if you opt to disclaim him as your inspiration) is the illusion that society has any power to act. Society does not act, for society does not choose, nor can it decide. Action, decision, choice, are expressions of the mind and of the will, each intrinsic only to the individual, and never to the collective.
There is no consciousness in the group; at best there is consensus, but no more than this. Thus neither can there be will, nor mind, and from this it can be seen that the group cannot choose, cannot decide, and will never act.
Thus in any society liberty becomes the inevitable supreme civic virtue; liberty is the recognition that, though man may seek the communion of his neighbors, he must choose, decide, and act as an individual man. Though man desires the companionship of his fellows, he must answer for his sins alone, and so it follows that he must enjoy first claim to the fruits of his industry alone.
When a man is thus charged to answer for himself, and rewarded with the fruits of his own industry, he is given every reason to seek always the wise choice, the prudent decision, the careful act, to chart a path that maximizes his own prosperity. When the charge and the reward are remove from a man, his reason for wise choice and prudent decision diminish. To the degree that men are denied both charge and reward, to that degree men inspired to unwise deeds.
By charging charity a failure of society, you charge that men should not answer for themselves, nor should enjoy reward of their labors. You charge that the group as a whole must answer for each individual, and must likewise have prior claim to the fruits of the individual's labor. Your charge against charity admits of no other origin, for society--the group--cannot so fail unless it is first endowed with the charge and with the claim. Thus your charge against charity is wrong; it proceeds from the wrong view of society and a wrong understanding of liberty and its necessity.
Thus it is that your rhetoric and your politics are completely, unalterably, and unmistakably wrong.
