There is a common misconception that without the government actively assisting the economically disadvantaged, the poor would have no means of survival. This conclusion fails to account for the unseen costs of such governmental actions. There are numerous reasons why we should adopt a view that the role of government is not to provide for basic necessities.
?The government, contrary to popular belief, is not a fountain of wealth. It does not create wealth, which it can spread around "fairly." Through the governmental structure, people are forced to support governmental measures. If one believes that it is morally questionable to use personal threats of coercion to force your neighbor to give to the poor, then it is equally morally questionable to ask the government to force one’s neighbor to give to the poor.
The government’s means of obtaining the funds to redistribute has a negative effect on growth. The productive members and businesses of society are targeted for the very fact they are productive.
This holds back sector expansion and prevents the creation of new jobs that could have helped the unemployed. ?Morris and Linda Tannehill point out in their book, The Market for Liberty that "(Taxation) drains the economy of capital which might otherwise be used to increase both consumer satisfaction and the level of production and thus raise the standard of living. Taxing away this money either prevents the standard of living from rising to the heights it normally would or actually causes it to drop." ?
While governments can put the money to use in the public sector, it cannot be used as productively as it would have been in the private sector. Individuals spend their money more carefully than governments.
The government crowds out private charity. During the 19th century, there were vast networks of charities that were comparable to some of the biggest industries of the time. But since the dawn of the welfare state, more and more people view charity not as an individual call to action, but as a public sector service, even a political right.
"As bad off as we are in the U.S., it is nothing compared with Europe, the continent that gave birth to charitable services." Lew Rockwell, the director of the Mises Institute, wrote. "Today, few Europeans donate a dime to charity because everyone is of the belief that this is a government service, and, moreover, after taxes and high prices, there isn’t much left over to donate." ?Murray charts the relationship between government actions and philanthropic behavior and found that when administrations took office with the attitude of "if you don’t help no one will," philanthropy increased.
"People tend not to do a chore when someone else will do it for them," Charles Murray writes in In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government.
If people know that governments will provide a safety net for the needy, there is little reason for the public to step up. When governments reach out, citizens feel less responsibility to their fellow neighbor. Murray concludes that charitable contributions that exist today are only the tip of the iceberg if governments were not involved.
This is not just a problem of amount, but also a problem of efficiency. The private sector is bound by less red tape, their members are more qualified – as their appointments are more likely to be established by merit than political considerations – and they can tailor their responses to the needs of the community rather than the needs of the people that set their funds.
Morris and Linda Tannehill state, "Private charity is vastly more economical and efficient than government welfare, since it is in a much better position to distinguish those deserving of help from phonies who just want a free ride, and to dispense its funds accordingly."
A lack of an immediate negative feedback mechanism in governmental action ensures competing charitable organizations can be more effective than bureaucratic governments. When Charity X blunders a project, the public gets words of the failure and†shifts funding from Charity X to Charity Y. But when government blunders, there might be a hearing in Congress, practically no one watches it on CSPAN, and everyone just keeps paying their taxes.
Gilson, a business sophomore, can be reached via [email protected].
"People tend not to do a chore when someone else will do it for them," Charles Murray writes in In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government.
If people know that governments will provide a safety net for the needy, there is little reason for the public to step up. When governments reach out, citizens feel less responsibility to their fellow neighbor. Murray concludes that charitable contributions that exist today are only the tip of the iceberg if governments were not involved.
This is not just a problem of amount, but also a problem of efficiency. The private sector is bound by less red tape, their members are more qualified – as their appointments are more likely to be established by merit than political considerations – and they can tailor their responses to the needs of the community rather than the needs of the people that set their funds.
Morris and Linda Tannehill state, "Private charity is vastly more economical and efficient than government welfare, since it is in a much better position to distinguish those deserving of help from phonies who just want a free ride, and to dispense its funds accordingly."
A lack of an immediate negative feedback mechanism in governmental action ensures competing charitable organizations can be more effective than bureaucratic governments. When Charity X blunders a project, the public gets words of the failure and†shifts funding from Charity X to Charity Y. But when government blunders, there might be a hearing in Congress, practically no one watches it on CSPAN, and everyone just keeps paying their taxes.
Gilson, a business sophomore, can be reached via [email protected].
