The government is supposed to protect our freedoms: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as the Declaration of Independence says. But it seems more and more of our politicians are confusing the “pursuit of happiness” with happiness. Whether it’s aid for the poor in the form of food stamps, welfare or even things for everybody like Social Security, the politicians seem to want to be there to “help.” Ron Paul refers to this as the “welfare” state, where the government tries to help with a seemingly endless amount of things: food, shelter, education, housing and even cars. But do we need this help? A better question might be to ask if it’s actually helping. I contend it’s not. I’d much rather we didn’t have these programs. I think we should do things like help out the poor and help people save for their retirement; I just don’t think the government should be doing that.
I know the American people are charitable and kind. We don’t need welfare to take care of our poor. There are thousands upon thousands of local charities that provide for the needs of the poor and they do things better than the government does. Why is that? Well, if you’re a private charity you have to make ends meet. If you’re not providing a decent service then people won’t donate their time and money into the charity and it won’t continue to exist. Welfare, on the other hand, takes money from taxpayers and appropriates it as the government sees fit.
I realize that welfare currently provides a valuable service and it would probably be devastating to abolish it overnight. So what if we were to phase out welfare over the next 10 years? I am confident that private charities would step up to the plate to help people currently on welfare. I know that if welfare was to end and my money that currently goes to help the poor wasn’t going to anymore, I’d personally be willing to donate that money to charity.
Let’s compare a government program and a non-governmental agency of somewhat similar functions. Imagine if a major natural disaster hit your town and you had the choice of either the American Red Cross or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to help. Which would you choose? My choice would be the Red Cross. I don’t know about you, but the majority of what I’ve heard about FEMA hasn’t been good news, while the Red Cross is usually held in high regard.
I’ve personally had some experience with the Red Cross in the past two years, as my family and I have had to evacuate our house twice because of wildfires. I never heard about FEMA doing anything in our community, but the Red Cross was on top of things from the start.
American Red Cross’ total expenditures for the 2008 fiscal year were $3.684 billion. I can’t seem to locate an official number for FEMA for the same time period, but Wikipedia lists it as $5.8 billion. Might you say that the Red Cross does more than FEMA? And can it do more for $2 billion less? Oh and this might come as a surprise, but contributions for the 2008 fiscal year were only 24 percent of the Red Cross’ revenue. The majority of their revenue came from products and services, unlike FEMA’s budget, which comes straight from you, whether you or not you like it. Wouldn’t you rather see your money that currently goes to FEMA go to the Red Cross? Or here’s an idea: Maybe you wish that money went to a different organization. Shouldn’t that be up to you?
When the government sets up a program like FEMA, to “help” people in times of emergencies, it sounds like a noble and worthwhile cause, but should the government be there to help us with our personal needs? In areas where local charities can help people, the government seems to step in and try to provide those services. The government programs usually entail bureaucracy galore and cost way more than a charity that could provide the same service (if not better).
We should ease the public off our government “welfare state” programs and let the free market decide which charities and programs are worthwhile. Things would be much more efficient that way and we would still be taking care of the needy.
Glad to see some one’s resumed the libertarian column. Great job. Keep up the good work!
Aaron,
This is undoubtedly a pivotal point in the libertarian movement. With those on the left trying to run our lives through out pocketbooks and those on the left trying to pick our morals for us, you can be a voice of reason.
Read “The Law” by Fred Bastiat. Its a short 80 pg read that will fine tune your arguments against statism and the cradle-to-grave mentality.
Good luck.
I appreciate the feedback.
Jefferson, thank you for the kind words.
Bastiat, I’ll try to check out The Law sometime. It sounds like an interesting book.
Aaron,
Thanks for the insight, however, I disagree in some of the facts being made. Whether American people are charitable or not, there aren’t enough programs to support the millions of people who are under the welfare and social security program. These programs are meant to help the poor, no, more like low income families begin their lives in such a vast country. I am not disagreeing to the fact that the red cross and Fema aren’t doing their jobs to help but are there enough charitable programs for the the wealthy to help supply food and shelter for the poor and hungry? Do the rich get to choose who they can help? Do the poor continue to be poor because they do not have welfare or social security? Having been a person under this position, welfare has helped my family tremendously. Our pursuit to happiness needs a jump start.
Bastiat, I read the book last night. It was amazing. Thank you very much for recommending it. I’ve since recommended it to a few of my friends.
Ly, thank you for sharing your point of view. I agree with you that there aren’t enough “charitable programs to support the millions of people who are under the welfare and social security” programs, as you put it. That’s why I think we need to work slowly towards end goals and not have any radical, immediate changes to the system. People need time to adjust, charities need time to help pick up the slack, etc.
Social security is a great example of a program that is going to end up hurting people: you and me especially. We will pay into the system but there won’t be money for us when we retire. It’s a broken system. I contend the broader welfare system is also broken. Maybe not the official welfare system, but the “welfare state” mentality. Our government is trillions of dollars in debt; it isn’t working.
HELL YEAH BABY I LOVE IT!!! RON PAUL REVOLUTION!
WE DONT NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE MONEY FROM OUR WAGES AND SPEND IT ON BANKRUPT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, EXPLOSIVES FOR ISRAEL TO KILL CHILDREN, OR WELFARE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. INCOME TAX IS ILLEGAL!
BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THAT? PRESIDENT OBAMA CERTAINLY DOESNT!! HE SHIPS BAILOUT MONEY OVERSEAS, CONTINUES TO BE COMMANDER OF AN ARMY AT WAR WITH 2 COUNTRIES, POSSIBLY 2-4 MORE VERY SOON, AND CHAIRS THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL …. ALL UNCONSTITUTIONALLY!! THE BITCH CARES NOTHING ABOUT OUR LAWS, HE CANT BE A UN CHAIRMAN, HILLARY CLINTON CANT SERVE AS SECRETARY OF STATE B/C BOTH ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE US CONSTITUTION. HECK WE DIDNT EVEN DECLARE WAR SINCE WW2 BUT WE GOT 160 AIR FORCE BASES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. WHAT IS THE IDIOT THINKING!?!?!
WE NEED JEFFERSON TO RANSACK THEM AND BURY THEM ALL IN THE BACKYARD OF MONTICELLO!
There are two obvious logical fallacies that are embedded in your case. As much as I would like to believe it to be true, when you claim that American people are charitable and kind, you are in fact making a hasty generalization. Not all Americans find the selfless pleasure out of donating to a charitable cause. If we were to abolish the idea of welfare and rely on citizens to provide support to the poor, we would be relying on the generalization that everyone would donate or volunteer. Unfortunately, this is not the case and there are no statistics or facts that could support that Americans as a whole are "charitable and kind". The second fallacy that you use in your argument is a false analogy between the American Red Cross and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In this case, you said it yourself that the Red Cross is a non-government agency while FEMA is. To compare the two would be unethical because despite a shared cause to provide relief to suffering, the two agencies were founded on completely different terms. FEMA is founded as an agency to provided relief to a specific disaster in the US that overwhelms the resources of state or local officials. On the other hand, the Red Cross was founded as a worldwide movement to providing care to victims of war and natural disasters, while aiming to prevent suffering. As you can see, the two agencies are essentially not comparable. Although you have a valid point and example to support your biases behind the Red Cross, there is not enough evidence or valid sources to conclude that the Red Cross is more effective than FEMA
Courtney,
I’m not sure why you’re under the impression that I think (or stated) that all Americans are “charitable and kind”. I think overall, as a whole, that we are a charitable and kind people. But sure, there are many individuals who are not.
I found a site (http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropy/philanthropy_stats.asp) with some interesting statistics on Americans and charity, like the fact that 89% of households give and 55% of individuals volunteer. However, “kindness” is not easily measured or compared, nor would I like to attempt that. I simply believe that there is a lot of kindness in the American people as a whole. Do we agree on that point?
I’m not sure how my comparison between FEMA and the Red Cross is “unethical”. Maybe it’s not valid, but “unethical”? I stated in my article that they are “of somewhat similar functions”. I’d say that’s a fairly loose association; I certainly didn’t say they have the exact same purpose. With that having been said, your point that they are founded on different terms only seems to add to my point. If FEMA was founded to provide “relief to a specific disaster in the US that overwhelms the resources of state or local officials”, wouldn’t you say that that is a more narrow mission than being a “worldwide movement to [provide] care to victims of war and natural disasters, while aiming to prevent suffering”? If you agree that FEMA’s goals are more narrow, then it’s even more amazing that it costs more than the Red Cross to operate.
"We should ease the public off our government “welfare state” programs and let the free market decide which charities and programs are worthwhile."
No. We should set a date to stop a program and do it completely, not gradually. For example, announce that in 6 months, the program in question will terminate. People who really care will find alternative solutions as quick as possible. Those who don’t care as much will procrastinate. The private companies who would replace the government service would compete for funding, with donors wishing that each one of their dollars does as much work as possible.
The problem with a gradual reduction is that taxpayer funding is binary: either we are paying for the government service, or we are not. Some may rationalize "Well, my tax dollars are still paying for this service. I’m not ready to donate yet." If there was absolutely no tax-funded program at all, that rationalization would not exist. Politically, it is much easier to increase funds to an under-funded program than it is to restart funding for a stopped program. A gradual reduction keeps the window for relapse open longer.
Otherwise, I agree with your article.
I recommend reading "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. If you prefer listening instead, there is a free podcast of it (broken down by chapter) available on iTunes under the name "Mises.org Audio Book Podcast: For a New Liberty".
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=183743687
This article uses a major logical fallacy. The logical fallacy used in the article is oversimplification. As the article states, simply abolishing the welfare system overnight will not fix anything. By using charitable programs to provide “welfare” for the millions of poor Americans could help as well. But there are not enough American charitable programs that could support the millions of Americans who rely on welfare and social security. There is no real simple solution to the welfare problem. Efficient experts and time will only tell how this problem will be fixed.