Who should help?

[NOTE: Sorry this is late; I wanted to get some more research for the third part below, and just haven't had time. I've since rewritten it to require fewer numbers, but now it's unsourced, which is annoying because it's a point that needs facts and figures, I think.]

Read the previous parts of this series: Part 1 (Identifying the problem) and Part Two (How can we help?).

I’ve asked what prevents people from being able to pull themselves up out of poverty and what we can do to help. In my last post, I made the assumption that the government would be addressing this problem, but that’s a pretty big assumption, and in fact, is the third major problem I see with our current welfare system: government involvement forces those who don’t want to help to do so. Liberals reading this probably find themselves asking, “So what?”, so I’ll explain:

It imposes religious/moral rules on those who believe differently

The stereotype in American politics is that Republicans (or conservatives in general) want to force people to live according to their (meaning the Republicans’) moral code. You’ll often hear this portrayed (by Democrats/liberals) as a desire on the part of Republicans to establish a government-based religion. Often, that’s just a straw man that serves to keep the debate from actually focusing on the issue at hand, but the general attitude is clear: liberals believe that forcing individuals to obey religious rules is wrong.

It’s immensely amusing to me, therefore, that liberals tend to be the ones who want to expand the welfare system. In general, you’ll hear them say that it’s something we owe the poor, that it’s a moral imperative. On rare occasions (usually when speaking to a religious crowd), they’ll go even further, pointing out that charitable giving is a requirement of the Christian religion. In other words, they are doing exactly what they accuse conservatives of trying to do. They want to force you to live by their moral and/or religious rules. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. They don’t care about protecting the separation between church and state; they just want to be the ones who make the rules.

Why should those who are non-religious (or those whose religions don’t encourage/require charity) be forced to live under the rules established by some religions?

It interferes with the exercise of religion

Not only does the current welfare state force religious and moral practices on those who would otherwise not be inclined to follow them, it impedes the free practice of those who would follow them.

Christians are commanded to not just give, but to give with a willing and generous heart. Surprisingly, being forced to give money to the poor doesn’t encourage a willing and generous heart. It encourages malcontent and frustration. Even those who aren’t even slightly bitter about the fact that they have effectively been robbed by Big Brother Robin Hood will find the amount of money that they are able to give willingly significantly reduced after the government’s vote-buying… er, charity… is taken out of their paycheck.

It encourages class warfare

I don’t want people to read the previous point and think that I believe that only Christians are generous. Even after our charity-at-gunpoint programs, Americans are extremely generous. In 2004, an earthquake in the Indian ocean caused a massive tsunami that was one of the deadliest in history. The American people gave $2,000,000,000. The American government, on the other hand, pledged $900,000,000. After our government pledged nearly a billion dollars and sent the military in to perform rescue operations, we still gave two billion dollars (source).

The American people donate money, time, and services every day to those in need, both domestically and internationally. As a percentage of GDP, we give more, privately, than most other developed nations. Yet, for some reason, despite all that giving, there remains a pervasive sense that the American people are stingy and greedy because we don’t want to be forced to do the giving. As a result, those who are in need often feel like those of us whose needs are met are hoarding our possessions and refusing to help them. Correspondingly, the well-to-do, especially those who genuinely do give generously, get the sense that the recipients of government welfare feel entitled, that there is absolutely no appreciation for their generosity. These two attitudes aren’t shared to the same degree among all members of these classes, but I don’t believe there’s anyone in either class that doesn’t at least let the respective distrust of the other class cross their mind from time to time.

Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum exploit this. Liberals will focus on the fact that conservatives don’t want to spend government money to help others — they’re greedy and selfish. Conservatives, on the other hand, will focus on those who exploit the system: liberals, they say, want to take your hard earned money and give it not to people who can’t work, but those who won’t. It’s very useful to them, because they can play the two sides against on another, which allows them stand in front of us and continue giving us “answers” that don’t solve anything except their need for votes.

It’s inefficient

Practically everything the government does is extraordinarily inefficient. For example, look at the differences in overhead/administrative costs for public and private schools. Private charities will, simply by virtue of being private, be much more likely to be more efficient than any government-run charity. What if they’re not? Well, people can simply move their charitable giving to another organization that is more efficient. We don’t have that choice in a government-run charity system.

All in all, while I strongly believe (largely as a result of my faith) that it is our responsibility to do what we can to help others, I believe it is far outside of the responsibility of government to handle these issues. I prefer to keep charity private and let the government get on with those things that a government is supposed to do.