Provision must be made for the poor. Throughout human history, this has been the refrain of the compassionate. Indeed, generosity towards the poor is one of the most universally recognized virtues, it is present nearly without exception in religious and secular philosophies. I know there are people who will, if for no other reason than to play devil's advocate, argue against it until they're blue in the face, but for the purpose of this article, let us start from this premise: that a virtuous man has a moral obligation to help the poor.

Yet in the modern era, we find something very different. Instead of starting from this individual's obligation and following it through to the consequence of generosity, we live in a society where the poor are said to be entitled to this provision merely for being poor. The individual moral responsibility may yet exist, but it is purely academic: the state will see to it that by hook or by crook this entitlement is received.

This has actually perverted what has long been a pretty much universal human virtue. The people who mere generations ago would have tirelessly worked to provide for the poor now largely work just as tirelessly to create new entitlements for the poor.

In my opinion, this is largely to blame for the knee jerk negative reaction of many individuals when the notion of helping the poor arises. Painful history tells us that the man who casually holds out his right hand in a modern call for compassion is usually far busier with his left hand, rifling through our pockets for whatever we might through greed or necessity see fit to withhold from him.

And to what end? None, save making the burden of that compassion easier to bear. The curse of the virtuous throughout history has been that, no matter how much good they really do, it never seems like enough. Modern society has sought refuge from this by collectivizing the burden. If the poor are not sufficiently provided for, it is society's fault for being selfish, not the individual's fault for not trying hard enough.

In the end, it is the poor that suffer. Between the inefficient and ofttimes downright malevolent ministrations of the state and the glib dismissal by respectable members of society who have already "done their share" in paying their taxes, it's no wonder that so much of the world's population remain mired in nearly inescapable destitution.

The state welfare office will never be the loving benefactor that the poor need, for much the same reason the prison warden will never be the caring reformer that the criminal desperately needs. They not only owe their livelihoods to the continued existence of their respective charges, they stand to benefit greatly from an increase in the problems they are expected to solve.

The poor may receive the basic necessities of survival from the state. The state may even be exceedingly generous with creature comforts that distract them from their station. And why shouldn't they be? A percentage of the money spent will inevitably trickle into the pockets of various bureaucrats along the way. Besides, it's not their money to begin with.

But whether they're kept on the brink of starvation as in the developing world or carefully sequestered in the shabby government housing of the west, the message is clear: the provision is being made, your tax dollars at work. Moreover, if it seems insufficient, petitioning the government is the correct course of action. The individual just can't have that big an impact.

At least, not anymore. When approaching the average well-meaning individual to assist in some private scheme to help the poor, one is met with a mix of incredulity and indignation. "I gave at the office", my obligation has been met, and how dare someone approach me and say it's not enough. When one considers how much that average person is giving to the government, and what an emphasis "helping the poor" generally gets in the government's various propagandae he must imagine he's already been exceedingly generous.

But when one examines the fact of the matter, he likely hasn't. The government has taken a few thousand dollars from him, but only a few dollars of that was dispensation for the poor. Of that, much is eaten up by bureaucracy, so that he may find, if he were permitted to follow the money trail, that he has given mere pocket change.

Most likely, if he were left to his own devices, he would give more. Even if not, when presented with a request for aid he no longer can delude himself into thinking he has already provided it amply. That is perhaps the greatest harm done by the modern welfare state, for it has salved the consciences of those who have done precious little, and discourages the well-meaning individual from thinking he can affect change in the lives of others on his own.

BBC says "Hometowns mourn slain US troops":

Family and friends of two US soldiers taken captive and killed in Iraq have been paying tribute to them.

"Our son... died for the freedom of everybody in the United States," Thomas Tucker's father Wes told NBC.

No, your son died for NOTHING. He was in Iraq taking my freedoms and Iraqis' freedoms, and he paid for this with his life. Deal with it.

This week, there has been a piece of news that has captured the imaginations of media outlets the world over. Of course, I speak of the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

From salivating pundits on the various cable news stations to the gleeful heads of state, the death of this villain has united popular opinion in a way that we don't often see. President Bush, for his part, declared this a decisive victory in the war on terrorism.

Not decisive in the traditional sense of the term, it would seem. No sooner had the news hit the wire when various government officials began to temper the optimism with the fact that al-Zarqawi was just one man, and that in the grand scheme of things his death probably wasn't going to lead to a decline in violence in Iraq.

Brushing aside such a decided down note, we watched as the news outlets eagerly ran story after story about the elaborate planning that lead to this death. Oh, sure, it probably never would have happened without the apparent betrayal of al-Zarqawi by others within al-Qaeda, but even still, it required one of those stunning demonstrations of military might that make such great fodder for the evening news. At least many hundreds of personnel were involved, though if the CNN Headline News story is to be believed, it could well be considerably greater. Missiles ain't cheap, nor are umpteen planes and the unknown quantity of soldiers, I think we're safe in assuming this singular operation cost many millions of dollars, at a bare minimum.

That leaves me wondering, personally, what the point of all this was. Was it worth millions to kill a single man, especially when that death isn't going to bring an end to the war?

My fellow pacifist Michael Berg doesn't think so. Having lost his own son at the hands of al-Zarqawi, he still sees no cause for celebration in this death. This has led, rather predictably to some very public castigations of Mr. Berg for not being sufficiently happy.

But why should he be? Al-Zarqawi's death will not bring back his son. The death does not bring the war any closer to a conclusion, indeed the zeal that has sprung forth after finally managing to kill somebody, anybody, of import in the insurgency is if anything going to hurt the chances of an early withdrawal.

I would propose, instead, that perhaps the rest of you are a little too happy about this whole thing. One murderer is dead, killed by others, and thousands upon thousands yet remain to ply their trades upon their respective segments of the Iraqi populace. Is this truly cause for celebration?

Underscoring this, mourners in al-Zarqawi's hometown are hoping for a thousand more like him, to kill the enemies who kill them. Judging from the joy so many feel in one meaningless death of one high profile enemy, it's hard to imagine them not getting their wish, many times over in the future.

A couple of weeks ago, in a rather insignificant exchange on Anti-State.Com, the world famous Joe relayed a little anecdote that he picked up from his cousin whose husband is in Iraq. Apparently, or so the story goes, Iraqis are now throwing their babies in front of humvees so that the kind and gentle Americans will stop and make themselves vulnerable to roadside explosives. Stopping is obviously too dangerous and thus, the orders are in: run those babies over.

Now assuming they are true, though I am skeptical, it seems to me that most reasonable people would find such tales to be alarming and outrageous. I would. A parent has no right, at least that I know of, to choose to lay their young ones upon the sacrificial alter of a cause that their children are incapable of comprehending and much less capable of embracing. If a parent wants to give their own life for an ideal then fine but a child's life is not a parent's to give. This seems like a fair explanation of why most rational and sane people would find it offensive to throw babies in front of trucks.

But then I had a conversation with one of those self-proclaimed liberty lovers who insist that the war in Iraq is, or at one time was, a good thing on account of it being a so-called war of liberation. That got me thinking. Maybe these parents aren't murderous degenerates after all. Maybe they should be honored as heroic freedom fighters. Many do, at last, believe that they are fighting for freedom and isn't freedom worth dying for? Isn't it worth a life or two?

Such is the common justification given by war supporters when confronted with images, accounts or statistics of deaths and casualties among innocents. Aren't a few (hundred thousand) lives a fair price to be paid for freedom? I mean, live free or die! Right? Those innocents died for a good cause. They died for liberty.

So, can't those throwing their babies in the road make the same claim? After their baby's skull has been crushed by a humvee and their young brains splattered in the gutter, can't those parents pump their fists in the air and quote Patrick Henry, "give me liberty or give me death?" Can't they claim that it is worth it to lose one's life in the fight for freedom and, therefore, their baby's death is acceptable? Can't they just call it collateral damage and thereby grant themselves immunity from receiving the title of murderer?

Well, according to those good supporters of liberating wars, the answer to all of the above questions is "NO!"

You see, it is only the state, particularly the global hegemon, who can make such claims. It is not ok for a parent to throw their own babies under a truck but it is ok for Americans to throw someone else's babies underneath bombs, tanks, bullets and maybe a few boot heels. Hell, Americans don't have to stop at babies either. Oh no, we get to make the choice between liberty and death for men and women as well as children. By god, we Americans love liberty so damn much that we won't hesitate to kill you in order to set you free. You may not be willing to lay down your life for freedom but don't worry, we'll make you.

Wow, what an honor, what a responsibility. I'm so glad I'm an American.

But seriously, I don't think I can stand to hear one more person claim that the war in Iraq is, or was, one of liberation. That may have been a charming and almost believable bromide in 2003 but 3 years into this catastrophe can we please call it what it is? Throwing babies in front of trucks.