This is just so much "word poop" -- and you acknowledge this is your own statement when you write; "One man's idea of charity...". I totally agree with the implication that "One man's idea of charity..." is just that -- one person's idea of charity -- one definition which evokes a particular set of circumstances. The term "charity" is rendered virtually meaningless in the absence of some consensual definition. One of the goals of American law, as set out in the Constitution, is to "promote the general welfare". How one defines "the general welfare" is critical, as different people will define it in different ways. The overriding concept of promoting the general welfare is almost meaningless if we do not know what is meant by the term, including what is to be included within the concept and what is to be excluded from it. While the Christian Bible reads "thou shalt not kill," it is interesting to note that many who profess to be devout followers do not hesitate to call for the death penalty and are eager to enter into unnecessary wars, where many thousands will surely die -- all the while claiming to follow the dictates of their religion. Broad, generalized pronouncements often sound good, but are totally devoid of meaning without specific inclusive and/or exclusionary criteria to explain precisely what is meant by ideas or principles set forth. Such is a recipe for irreconcilable, unending disputes...and a higher and higher pile of meaningless "word poop".