I agree with you that mandated “giving” isn’t giving, but could violate a right to make choices for oneself. But I do think we could gain a lot of a culture that promoting people helping each other. There are a few reasons that I believe this:
There isn’t enough government to provide all of the help that is needed, nor should there be (that is another form of forced giving – one I support to the extent that a base level of education, shelter, health care and food can be provided for all, but which has the economic dangers of too high a rate of taxation)
People who are willing to help others when they can seem to be happier. In fact, advice I’ve been given for times I feel sorry for myself isto go out and help someone else, and has proven to be good advice)

The term “giving” should – I think – be widely interpreted, which goes with the idea of tolerance. It might be money or advice or literal help (barn building or tutoring) or picking up trash while walking down the street. It might be possible at different points in different people’s lives. But I would like to see it be celebrated and appreciated. I don’t think doing something for the greater good makes one exist for the greater good. But we have a lot of problems right now that are at least partly caused by acting too much in self-interest. There is a balance there.

I speak of incentives because merely relying on the altruism to cajole people to act against their own best interest is an unprofitable speculation; likewise, relying on the wisdom and altruism of political leaders to govern the lives and property of others, when the leaders operate outside the bounds of law and custom, is fraught with peril.

I suggest you read Adam Smith’s WEALTH OF NATIONS for a cogent analysis as to the incentives which impel men to act.

I could suggest also that a close examination of history will yield answers, even if they are answers that surprise you, if you see what has worked in the past to approach the type of society you envision.

For example, look at examples of community action, of what you call “giving back” to the community, and see what causes it. The great Cathedrals of the Gothics were public works, as was the charity of Jewish communities in the Roman Empire. The social unity of the Orangemen in Ireland is another example, where the presence of a turbulent population of another race and religion drove the colonists into closer social union. Again, among Eskimos, it is unheard-of to not share scarce meat during starvation times, which are frequent. There, for example, we have three situations that prompt notorious public altruism: prompted by religion, by danger, and by want.

This might be merely the beginning of an arduous process of research and reflection.

I get very nervous when I see a statement like this. It strikes me that this is a very deep infringement on the right of an individual to exist for himself or herself, and not as an instrument of society or of some “greater good”. While I am perfectly happy to commend people who voluntarily choose to “give back” to society, I am reluctant to enforce it by either exactions of the state (i.e. welfare statism) or by the more subtle social pressure exerted by “expectations”. Expectations have a way of becoming obligations. And obligations become fetters, until at last the more productive are viewed not as individuals in their own right but simply as “resources” to be used up for the “greater good”.

I agree with you on both counts. I think we need to grow up, which means we need to be responsible and helpful and compassionate. And besides, I don’t think you can mandate compassion or responsibility, although I suppose anti-litter fines help a little with that specific part. But anti-litter social stigma or education about how bad litter is are better tools by far.
I also think we are making progress in many areas – we are less prejudiced in many ways, for example. But we need to change faster or the damage we’re doing could overwhelm us.

Brenda

Perhaps a similar technique could be used to put pressure to give back on those who have enough to do so. I’d rather see cultural changes than written-in-stone laws, where possible.

And the biggest thing I think we should stress is the concept of living within one’s means, rather than incurring debt to live a more lavish lifestyle, but then being at the mercy of creditors and possibly losing everything. I’m not sure we can force people to adopt that new strategy until our country does the same.