Many well-meaning Americans support taxation to fund social welfare programs, arguing that civilized society takes care of the most vulnerable. That last part is certainly true, but government is not the best way to accomplish it. Here's why:
Compulsion breeds indifference, or even contempt. The government takes money from us at gunpoint to give to the 'poor.' How loving are we feeling toward those less fortunate now? In countries with large social welfare programs, the milk of human kindness thins and societies break down, with tragic results. The French heatwave that killed 15,000 people, because social workers were on holiday in August and regular citizens expected "someone" to check on the elderly, should be a lesson for us all.
Charity is efficient. Good charities spend less than 10% of their funds on overhead costs and over 90% on the actual programs themselves. Government builds bureaucracies that capture over 80% of the funds before the poor ever see a dime.
Charity is holistic. Government programs hand out cash or other material goods. But poverty and misfortune need more than that. No amount of money in the world can replace labor, blood, "tough love," encouragement or a shoulder to cry on. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, when large social welfare programs take over, societies experience a fundamental shift in attitude. Citizens relinquish themselves from any sense of personal responsibility because "we have a program that takes care of that." Worse, high tax avoidance rates that accompany high taxes create suspicion and distrust between people. Society breaks down.
Charity seeks actual solutions. The goal of government programs is to expand its social welfare programs. Hence, increasing the number of SNAP (food stamp) recipients is a "success." Charity is entirely the opposite: Success is lifting someone out of poverty and into self-sufficiency.
Charity doesn't create (as much) dependency. Government social welfare programs become 'entitlements,' which the poor expect to be available forever. And if there is even a hint of reduction of those 'rights,' the population that has come to depend on them can resort to violence. Witness the wide-spread rioting in Europe over even modest changes in the retirement age. Charity is subject to fund availability and willingness, and everyone understands this. Thus, I don't have to give to a charity that gives golf lessons to "at-risk youth," and other people don't have to support Bible hand-outs. We vote with our dollars, and this discourages freeloading.
Charity doesn't restrict freedom. Whole democracies are toppling because of their social welfare programs. People are losing their rights to a representative government, personal property, freedom of speech, travel, and everything in between. Socialism always leads to totalitarianism. Examples: North Korea, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Myanmar (Burma), Zimbabwe...
Charity doesn't kill people. Google "starvation during the Depression." You won't find any documented cases in the U.S., but you'll find upwards of 50 MILLION in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that were going on at the exact same time in history. Lacking many social welfare programs, private citizens in the U.S. fed their neighbors. Charity didn't fail, but government programs did, right when they were needed most. Worse, they stripped all the wealth out of the citizenry first, leaving even the productive bare.
In short, charity strengthens social ties, diminishes poverty and improves our culture. Government programs do exactly the opposite. Charity is frugal. The government is not.
----------------
Elise Cooke is the author of Strategic Eating, The Econovore's Essential Guide, which explains how eat very healthfully and conveniently for less than SNAP (food stamp) rates! Visit her website at SimpletonSolutions.com.
Comments