Charity?

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/poor-people-were-libertarians-once-counting-cats-in-zanzibar/

Excellent post and good comment thread too

Perhaps could be seen as an argument against any form of organizational help for the poor. Religion/the state created the idea that we must help the poor to give them access to wealth and power. As evidenced by Steve Hughes here who points out the idea behind charities and by extension state/religious welfare - "dont give him your money - you don't know what he might spend it on. Just give it to us and we'll make sure he gets it!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=rEnprknuKy0
Coercively extorted 'taxes' justified by welfare for 'the poor' and even voluntary contributions to charity both give the collecting organisation power and wealth. You trust them to pass the wealth along. Of course they need to be paid, or if not they need the trappings (comfortable offices, parties etc) to encourage others to give. The power comes from the 'unarguable' position of 'doing something good' for 'the disadvantaged'. Any extension of their power and wealth grabbing is justified by this centuries old idea. Religion and then secular education have hammered this into us. It is unarguable with most people. The existence and continued growth of the state is justified by this idea. Coercive power, violence itself and all the evils stemming from it are time and again justified by this unquestionable taboo idea.
Also this idea ties in with the social justice / socialweldare / socialism / guardian do gooder we know best position. Don't give your money direct cos those people aren't as clever as us. We know what they want/need better than they do so best we take charge eh? Give us your money and give us the power to tell you what to do cos we're better than you.
Humans naturally care for their family group (whether you call it love or instinct the motivation behind this works at the family level but cannot be extended to an arbitrarily defined society. There is no natural motivation (no love inherrent in strangers) so coercive force is always required and always corrupts the intention. Coercive power cannot be justified on helping the poor based on some kind of social concience innate in humans. It fails an argument from principles (coercion is wrong) and it fails an argument from pragmatism (the coercion will always corrupt such ideas as can be seen in literally ANY example). Yes some humans will feel a desire to help their fellow beings in trouble. This can be argued to be natural but it is voluntary. It cannot be coercive.
I don't think it is natural or human. It is a false justification of coercive power. If you ask an individual who has just trotted out the above propaganda in answer to you challenging their support of a coercive state "given a 40% tax cut, would you give that 40% to charity?" They will either struggle or lie. It is a fact that HMRC will accept voluntary tax over payments. But noone believes the state helps the poor so much that they would do this. This alone proves that "helping the poor" is a false justification for the coercive power of the state.