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