Could you focus a bit more on what you dislike about forced charity and a low opinion of humanity, rather than grouping things you don't like together then labelling everything guilty by association

I would say that in an idealistic version of the world the coerced reallocation of resources would not be necessary, but only because all the other corrupt factors of life (unequal bargaining power, duress, fraud) destroy any chance of an equitable distribution of resources in demand to merit. As long as anyone has the legal right to force charity, or any other law for that matter, it is a necessary bandage to society's wounds. So, yes, in the short-term, the worst of ourselves is mitigated by the best of our intentions.

What's the difference between "corrupt helping" and non-corrupt helping?

Assuming less charity without it being forced, is this "corrupt helping" worse than not helping at all?

I've never understood why socialists feel that only government--an institution which has proven itself to be corrupt time and time again--can take care of the needy better than charities which are more often than not run by people who actually care about the needy. Americans give more to VOLUNTARY charities per capita than Europeans. I don't think it's any coincidence that Europeans tend to live in heavily socialized nation and no longer believe that they bear any personal responsibility to their fellow man. They've been socialist long enough that they now believe the government is responsible for helping others and that individuals can live guilt free while others are starving. Luckily most Americans still don't feel that way, although the tide is clearly changing.

Why can't they live guilt free? They voluntarily continue to live in their country and pay its taxes, resulting in them giving enough to charity to justify feeling guilt-free. If a European automatically gives two units "involuntarily" then a single unit voluntarily, while the American gives two voluntary units, the European deserves to be guilt-free in equal or greater amounts than the American.

Does the charity not count if it doesn't come from a princess with a pure heart?

You might want to use the word collectivist instead of socialist in pieces like this. A collectivist would include mercantilists, corporatists, theocrats, fascists, socialists, communists, or any other group that wants to take from one group at the point of a gun and give to another. You could argue that minarchists also belong in this grouping but it would depend on how the minarchist would go about funding "government." Socialism has a certain set of beliefs that are typically associated with it and you are trying to redefine socialism for no reason when another word that actually works better fits your usage.

Also durrhurr your example would be more accurate by saying Europeans give two by force and one by charity while Americans give one by force and two by charity. Also don't forget that capitalism greatly reduces poverty while third-way European socialism causes society to essentially stagnant in poverty levels or increase in poverty due to immigration depending on how free their markets are.

Also, I'm not really sure where else to post this but you might want to check out Free Talk Live which is a libertarian radio show that is hosted by an atheist.

There website is located here: www.freetalklive.com

The whole point of Obama's "socialism" is that there would be additional total charity if it were forced, so please show the studies you're leaning on.

You're confusing "socialism" with "communism." Socialism is where the government controls the major industries. There is still lots of private-sector employment. The difference most goods sold in private shops will contain some materials made by publicly-owned corporations, and will likely have been transported by a government-owned courier.

This doesn't mean the government make huge amounts of money from this; often, the companies will have a huge operating loss. The purpose of socialism therefore is to make goods cheaper.

Communism is where the government controls every economic change. It will own anything produced of any value. The shops will be run by the government, at least indirectly.