The False Charity of Governmentism

By Charles Novitsky

The following is a letter prompted by a an interesting discussion with a friend, on the nature of charity in a society and the role of government force, versus private philanthropy. The question was, if a society can or cannot depend upon the good nature of men to voluntarily help others. The alternative some propose, is the system we now have of government force to tax, and thus accomplish certain social tasks.

(here's my letter to him)
Dear John:
I understand your assertion that voluntarism cannot be depended upon in a society, and we must depend on governments to accomplish these those tasks. But, some would disagree with your conclusion, myself included. History also backs me up, for in pre-1960's America, there were many Jewish and Christian and Samaritan charities for all sorts good causes. The Red Cross, the Salvation Army are only two well known examples of century old, non-government charity. Almost all hospitals in 1800's-1900's NY were originally charities funded by the caring and by the wealthy, without government help and without stealing. Currently there are millions of voluntary charities in USA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charitable_foundation ).

If people like myself, and you, who say we care about any given issue or cause, do nothing of ourselves, or on our own, with our own wallets, then maybe thats hypocritical of us. If we demand of others (directly, or via the force of government and politicians), we are in effect forcing others to support our personal ideals. Furthermore, if we ask or force others to help our pet projects, without first digging from the well of our own pockets, or use our own sweat, then I assert , that reveals us to to be lazy , ambivalent, or uncreative. Without this missing ingredient (demands without self contribution), we become less successful in helping others. 

Actual support of charity, I argue, requires my financial, physical or mental investment. If there is an important charitable cause that I believe in, I should promote it on media, and YouTube, and place posters around town. I will sweat to get on the 6 o'clock News and announce it to the locality. I will call all my friends and contacts, and coax them to contribute time or money to this issue. 

If for example, John Doe truly cares to have a wheelchair ramp built in his mothers subsidized apartment building, he will call up Home-Depot, and try to convince them to help build the ramp. Or he may use some of his own money, and find others to chip in. You may believe its impossible, but motivated people come up with solutions. For example, my business creativity and passion would motivate me to use the advertising business approach, to solve the problem without force. I would try to persuade Lowes or Home Depot to help, and in return foster profitable "community good will". I would market to them, the bonus is that they can put their name on the ramp, such as: "Donated and Built Courtesy Your Caring Home Depot Center". On the other hand, many people and organizations like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, do a lot of charitable good, and yet, don't even care about putting their names on it. We are a compassionate species, possibly more so than any other living organism on the planet.

I have two problems with our current government forced charity system...

a) To forcefully take good ( productive ) money from the private talent that generates it, and place it into the hands of incompetent politicians, causes the wheelchair ramp to be more expensive. Also, government has a bad history for misallocating the money into wasteful silly projects (like teaching prostitutes how to drink alcohol-link here). Once the good money created by freedom and entrepreneurship, is in the pockets of government, it can no longer create as many jobs for poor people, and weakens the entire economy, and then even more jobless people need welfare. It is a vicious cycle, and our lame solutions are the cause of this problem. This is why unemployment has been increasing since the social welfare campaign to wipe out poverty started in the 1960's-1970's ( chart here). Studies show government is so inefficient, for every job they create in government, three jobs have been sacrificed from the private sector.(report link here)

It causes me great pain to see America partially destroyed economically, like the once mighty prosperous Detroit has been.  http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/26/charles-krauthammer-how-socialism-killed-detroit/

b) Many people would object to being robbed at gunpoint, even if the money were used for something the robber thought was good and important. I believe that is exactly what happens when government forcefully takes money from me, from Starbucks, from every business that hires people and contributes to our prosperous society. These businesses create jobs, not because business owners need to be kind, and give jobs to the community--but only so the business's customers are satisfied, and come back to patronize the business again. I believe forcefully taking any money is THEFT. I believe it is immoral. I believe it is un-kosher. I believe there is a better way. Encouraging volunteerism for charity in a freer society is the better way, and the moral way.

Yet I don't fool myself to think things will ever be PERFECT. Freedom and capitalism have proven to be imperfect, but they have by far, helped the greatest number of people ever in the history of mankind to succeed, and feed and clothe their families--I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT DESTROYED. I believe any interference with productivity, and the efficiency of the competitive market is poison. Studies suggest this is already happening in America, and many Euro-Socialist countries (link here). History proves a socialist solution will ultimately starve, and kill many, as it already has in USSR, China, Ho Chi Men, North Korea, Cuba.

Please read the economic book called "The Fatal Conceit" by Hayek, and I suspect you will understand and agree with me, or at least be better situated to argue against the facts I have laid out in this letter ( i.e. links included )

PS... According to some early political scientists like Bastiat, the proper role of a just government is only the protection of mans rights, and is limited to a court system for arbitration. It also can include a police force for intrastate enforcement, and a military for protection against raiders and encroachment of invaders. But when a government goes beyond this mission, and lusts to shape the society itself, it will err, and erode the freedom that fair and prosperous nations thrive on. This is because man's rights can be clearly defined, but the desires of utopian shaping are forever nebulous, ever changing and beholden sometime only by the few. Furthermore, any government given the strong powers needed to shape itself, is the strong type of government that is dangerous enough to use that power against man, and against freedom. For this last precise reason, these governments eventually creep toward tyranny and dysfunction. The only uncertain variable being just how long it takes to reach this irreversible abyss.

Regards
Charles

more links

1. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fallacy-government-creates-jobs
2. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/26-million-tax-dollars-spent-to-train-chinese-prostitutes-to-drink-responsibly-on-the-job
3. http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-stupid-things-the-governemnt-is-spending-money-on
4. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/26/charles-krauthammer-how-socialism-killed-detroit/
5. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/how_euro-socialism_set_off_a_fascist_bomb.html
6. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/052610-535508-as-euro-zone-demonstrates-again-socialisms-downfall-is-inevitable.htm

Question: Is there anything more important than food, shelter and healthcare for the poor?

Is there anything more important than food, shelter and healthcare for the poor?

By Charles Novitsky, Director,

Brainuity Strategic Consulting,

A San Diego Think Tank © 2014

“There is nothing more important, than to guarantee to the poor, food, shelter, and healthcare!” This was the statement made by a compassionate, smart, friend of mine, Marty. A friend who doesn’t classify himself as a liberal, nor a neoconservative, he is just a down to earth, average caring person. I’m sure, many of us have read and heard similar statements throughout the press, and various social encounters. His claim, was that as a community, we must gather our shared resources, and government power, to assure these basic needs and rights, to the poor, and unfortunate in America. His logic was, if a society could ever evolve highly enough to supply these basic needs, we will then have reached mankind's destined goal, and achieve utopia.

My answer was short and sweet. I said, “yes Marty, there is something much more important than food, shelter, and healthcare for the poor, and that's the freedom to produce food, shelter, and healthcare—for the poor, and in fact, for all of us.” He opened up a deeper discussion than he realized.

From a society's perspective, without the freedom to produce these basic needs of man, such as medicine and food, they will not exist. For clarification, I’m not including the food that one finds hanging from the trees, or swimming in the oceans, for that will not feed the 7 billion people currently living on planet earth. Natures supply of food would quickly be used up with our large modern populations. But, no matter if you are liberal, socialist, conservative, or statist, without freedom, even food will not be possible. Additionally, all our other arts, desires and hopes for humanity, would cease to be possible. Without freedom, we all suffer—both rich and poor.

As proof of this theorem, submitted for your approval, are these case histories where the pursuit of “food for all” initiatives by society, was thought to be more important than freedom itself. The end result, was neither food, nor freedom. Eventually, the freedom to even grow food vanished.

Case 1: Zimbabwe 1980-present

Zimbabwe, formerly called Rhodesia, was one of the wealthiest nations in Africa. Even more pertinent to our topic of food, it was wealthy with food, being one of the most successful food producers in Africa. It was even nicknamed, “Africa's Breadbasket”¹. The population enjoyed one of the highest employment rates in Africa, and the additional rewards of prosperity, and freedom. The educational system was considered one of the best in the continent². In general everyone was well off. However, as with all things human, nothing is ever perfect. But it was by far, for the vast majority of Zimbabweans, the best system, for the most number of people, they ever experienced in history.

But politicians declared there was still some poverty, and income disparities, when compared to the rich farmers who grew all the food. Even worse, although these farmers hired millions of local workers, and shared the wealth in the form of salaries, this was deemed “not fair enough”. Farmers, some complained, had the audacity to sell their foods grown, instead of giving it away to the poorer Zimbabweans. In pursuit of a more equal society, and eliminating the discrepancy of a small segment of rich and poor, the government went on a campaign to cure poverty, in the late 1990's³. The process started off slowly and almost invisibly, with laws that regulated who could own land, and who could grow the food. “Regulation” is just a polite word, for control of “freedom”, and thus these farming regulations were merely a politically correct way, of taking away the freedom to grow food, ironically, in order to make sure everyone had equal access to food.

But along with these lost freedoms, many other good things were lost in the process. Unemployment soon reached biblical proportions of 95%., the worlds highest. Hunger became so rampant in Zimbabwe, that according to Time Magazine, by 2006, fully 45% of Zimbabweans were suffering⁴. Hunger became the norm for society, and the majority, where it once was the exception. Even their stellar educational system shrank, and suffered. Inflation soon reached 89,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent annually (that’s 89 sextillion with 21 zeros)⁵. But this tale of Zimbabwe’s failure and decent into government induced hunger, is not a new one, and should have been avoided by anyone that knows economics and history, for it is the same story that occurred previously.

Case 2: Russia 1917-1991 (and still recuperating)

During the 1920's, the Russian citizens empowered their government, through Lenin, to shape a new Utopia of equality between the poor, and the rich. The politicians promised a revolution to change things, so now everyone would have a fair share, and everyone would pay their fair share. The new political leaders, Lenin and Trotsky, would now make sure there was abundant food for all. New laws and regulations, called “Decrees”⁶ were passed against some types of property rights, such as factory and farm ownership. Essentially, the people advocated trading some rights and freedoms in return for government goodies. Blue collar, Proletariat workers celebrated, for no longer would the greedy top “one-percenters”, own too much land. Those rich Bourgeois, would now be forced to share their factories output with its workers. Rich Bourgeois farmers would be forced to give back the land wealth, and pay their “fair share”. Taking this away land or property is still technically a tax, for taxation doesn’t have to be limited to taking away someone's money.

The results however, were quite the opposite dreamt of. Devastating hunger eventually afflicted the 66 million Russians. Up to 10 million died a slow tortuous death through starvation by 1922, followed with a second wave of starvation by 1933 with another 10 million dead., and still another million starved to death by 1947⁷. Of course a government made powerful enough to create such devastating hunger, also had the power to cause deaths by other methods. By comparison, many more millions of people who where spared the slow torture of hunger, where killed with fast, merciful, bullets and bayonets. Death was a guarantee for anyone who disagreed with Lenin or Trotsky, and the new world order. But make no mistake, even if some were lucky enough to avoid the grim reaper, NEARLY EVERYONE SUFFERED.

But wait—There's more! Communist China, in the pursuit of more equality and more food for all, starved up to 46 million between 1928 and 1961⁸. There are some people, that dismiss these millions of “death by starvation” as a thing of the past. Sadly, misguided attempts of societies to solve hunger, by a government decree, are still taking place today, in Venezuela, Argentina, and North Korea. According to The Washington Post, and numerous other news sources, starvation is so endemic in North Korea, that there are reports of people eating each other, including their own children. In other words, the suffering of hunger, and starvation is so painful, these people have resorted to cannibalism⁹. But again, this only shows the obvious consequences of utopianists trading freedom away, and giving those powers to politicians. There are other evils and damages, that are a bit harder to measure, count and observe. Such as the loss of possessions, human rights, education, the arts, health, and indeed every form of human dignity and happiness. So much so, that in the past, many East Germans where willing to commit suicide, or risk the certain death of being shot in the back, to regain freedom, by escaping over the “Berlin Wall--Iron Curtain”. This “Iron Curtain” still exists today, to mentally imprison North Koreans from escaping the powerful government they created. Governments are like medicine, the minimum correct dosage can be beneficial, but an overdose is poisonous.

One may ask, how come this pursuit of utopia often backfires so consistently in history, such as past Communist Russia, past Communist China, present day North Korea, present day Venezuela, and Argentina. According to economist and sociologist F.A. Hayek, the answer is clear—any government given the powerful permissions to do good for society, is by de-facto, simultaneously given the power to do equal bad, and evil. Allowing politicians the power to mildly curb freedoms for a good reason or cause, is the very same power that they may use to take away a freedom for some bad reason. Even if the power is not used for a bad purpose, it may be used for a crony or illogical purpose that makes no sense, or one that trades prosperity, job, or property rights, for the protection of a frog, that has never even existed in the area. Government power is THE common thread, not purity of intentions. This is why America's founding fathers created an unheralded set of laws, called The Constitution, to forever keep Washington government too weak to cause damage and tyranny¹⁰. It appears this precautionary intent has been forgotten by present day Americans, many of whom, have not re-read the constitution since grade school. As proof of this lost understanding of the Constitution, one need only ask 10 random acquaintances “How many powers does the Constitution limit Washington DC to. The official answer is located in article 1, section 8, on the first page of the Constitution. Washington's politicians, inclusive of Congress, The Supreme Court, and even The President, have ONLY EIGHTEEN POWERS*. This is officially called the “enumerated powers list”¹¹. The Constitution repeats this twice, again with the “Bill Of Rights” forever forbidding the Federal government from concerning themselves with anything else, not on this list of permitted powers.

Again, according to Hayek, the second reason that trying to engineer a more compassionate society by regulation ( e.g., by rules and laws) backfires on us, is the near infinite possibilities, and complexities, of human society. He asserts, that controlling complex systems like Mother Nature, and its subset, mankind’s economic human behaviors, are far too complex for any one man, or even groups of men, to predict and properly control¹². The results are nearly always catastrophic consequences, and unintended side effects. Due to the limited length of this article, readers seeking to know more about F.A. Hayek's teachings on complex social systems, freedom, politics and economics, should seek out his mind bending book “The Road To Serfdom”, available in most libraries.

###END###

Click here for a downloadable, or printable PDF version

* When numerically tabulated, and some additional scatter permissions are counted, the true approximate total is closer to 35 powers, that the Federal government is restricted to making laws upon, and technically to even discuss.

Bibliography & References

1http://spectator.org/articles/48721/breadbasket-dustbowl

2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe#Education

3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Zimbabwe#1990s

4http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1840034,00.html

5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe#Inflation_rate

6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik_Initial_Decrees#List_of_Soviet_Decrees

7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union

8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

9http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05/the-cannibals-of-north-korea/

10http://toftc.wikispaces.com/John+Locke,+Thomas+Jefferson+and+the+American+Revolution

11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#The_economic_calculation_problem