A call for private assistance

Why is it that progressives can't imagine private charity as a viable force dealing with assistance for the needy? It appears the very idea of private charity is a threat to the state. Almost to a person, with those who hold progressive political views, whenever the subject of private charity is brought up in a discussion, the response is one of intense opposition and denigration -- the most common response is a guffaw, a snorting proclamation of how ridiculous the idea is that private charity comes anywhere close to the effectiveness of the welfare state. This response is strangely more than scepticism, it's based in strong opposition, and this makes me wonder why such a guttural reaction would be forthcoming if the goal is to assist the needy. Surely all efforts would be embraced, and every new approach thoroughly considered among those fighting poverty, ignorance and sickness.

 

It's beginning to seem that the welfare state serves another purpose for some progressives, whether this purpose is consciously or unconsciously realized. I suspect that progressives who have participated in and watched the development of the welfare state have a stake in its survival since it's a large part of the foundation which gives the movement a power-base. I have to wonder, though, if the desire to keep the welfare state intact is not more for the sake of the welfare state itself, as it relates to the progressive movement as a whole, than for the sake of what's actually best for the needy.

 

I have to wonder if beneath this ideological conflict between private charity and the welfare state there are not political forces at play which instinctively resist private solutions because they are a threat to the power-base built around the welfare state. I don't mean this as an attack on the integrity of all those who hold progressive views and who support the welfare state (or conservatives who've supported the welfare state), I'm merely suggesting it's human nature to oppose perceived threats to deep-seated convictions, or threats to the political structure which house these convictions. I can see how someone, who also has a view of capitalism as a failed system which doesn't address justice and equality, views private charity as an inadequate avenue by which to deal with assistance to the poor -- and many people immediately associate the private sector, even when the efforts are not-for-profit, with their ideas about capitalism and the free market.

 

As someone interested in helping the needy I find the current denigration and scepticism regarding private charity, as many associate it with a cynical attempt by right-wingers to dismantle the welfare state, unfortunate and misguided. I suppose one would have to drill down to mindsets to get to the root of the resistance to private charity -- what I call private assistance. There's one mindset which doesn't believe people in general are compassionate enough or concerned enough to be motivated to contribute to private assistance. I don't know what this mindset is based on since there is much evidence that Americans have historically been generous, and our history of private assistance has been impressive. Once the welfare state took over and replaced charity, there has definitely been a change in attitude, but it's mainly the idea that government is taking care of the problem -- there  haven't been concerted campaigns to raise funds for private assistance which are based on the idea that these efforts are primary and critical -- there's always the idea of the government safety net being available if private assistance isn't enough.

 

Until there's an admission from government that the welfare state is not enough and, in fact, might be in danger of becoming severely insufficient in the near future, then society will not act to deal with the problem, and the mistaken idea that the welfare state is enough will prevent any private movements from being started in earnest. An objective look is in order, but first the problems of poverty and ignorance need to be freed from political defensiveness, so that viable efforts aren't thwarted by fear of the private sphere taking power from the public sphere. Poverty and ignorance are human problems and there are many in society who are willing and able to participate in solutions. We need creative, innovative ideas which a concerted private effort can provide -- creative insurance arrangements could be developed to deal with temporary set-backs, if regulations could be more friendly to this type of development.

 

Another progressive mindset which presents an obstacle is one that perhaps accepts people would be generous and committed to solutions, but the private sphere itself cannot be trusted to consistently provide assistance with no strings attached, to not be dependent on economic ups and downs, and that the private sphere would establish requirements too strict and judgemental -- this mindset has to do with responsibility and victimhood, with groups and individuals. The welfare state tends to look at groups within society who've been oppressed and victimized, while the private sector is more likely to deal with cases on an individual basis. Yet, every case of poverty and ignorance is an individual issue with individual solutions, and this might be the greatest strength of private efforts -- the ability to personalize assistance to meet individual, unique needs. Government is not nearly flexible enough to personalize assistance programs, so the mindset produces one-size-fits-all solutions -- and on top of the lack of flexibility, government programs are susceptible to politics, class warfare pressure and bureaucratic rote and procedure.

 

I suppose the mindsets I've mentioned are understandable in these times when anti-capitalism is even promoted by some conservatives eager to blame greedy businesspeople for our ills rather than look at government involvement, but the most horrible of mindsets, which is the greatest obstacle to private sphere solutions to poverty and ignorance, is the totally political mindset which would block private efforts simply as a way to protect political power. These progressives who are intent on maintaining a powerbase, regardless of what it takes, are reprehensible -- I throw politicians like Pelosi, Reid and Frank in this category -- professional politicians more concerned with protection of their powerbase than they are with solving societal problems. Each of these politicians, and the ones like them in both parties, represent what is wrong with our country and why the government is teetering on collapse -- and they are the reason why communties are unraveling, slowly dying of dependence.

The ragged government safety net

Despite all the talk about the need for a strong state to provide a safety net, not very many people are noticing the condition of the safety net or evaluating its operability. Despite the progress made by the 1996 reforms, the current administration is preparing to wipe that out. It appears most people think the problem has been settled and government is taking care of it -- that's a nice delusionsal defense mechanism against guilt to make people feel better, but it doesn't do much for the people who are needy.

The burden of social programs is growing to such proportions that government will start cutting back, and some states may be forced to cut back severely -- mainly because the efforts to help the needy is set up backwards. As a society, for the most part, we've decided to allow government to manage the problem of the needy, and government taxes us to fund their efforts. No one has to write out a check -- it's taken out of our income. How many people take the time to evaluate the social programs run by the government to determine if all this money is spent wisely and that it's getting results?

We're blindly following the failed policies of European welfare, and few are paying attention to the national slide into decay. Someone in Washington D.C. is taking care of the problem, everyone thinks, while our city neighborhoods deteriorate, healthcare spirals out of control, schools fail to educate students, the elderly nervously watch SS and Medicare go under, and unemployment rises.

The safety net is ragged, the programs are bloated with bureacracy and rather than lift people up with a helping hand, welfare is dividing the country into dependent have-nots and successful haves. Why is this happening? Why have we allowed the government to create a power base out of the most unfortunate in society who've been promised something that can't be delivered much longer?

The most insane aspect of this is that the one creative power which could lift all boats with a rising tide, capitalism, is being disparaged and framed as "evil". The very economic system which has fueled the incredible growth and prosperity we've witnessed through the years is now, after years of incremental controls, being strangled to its death. The only hope people in poverty have is in a free and vital market. A test of human spirit is facing us, and how we react will set our future -- all the mistakes and all the imperfections of any society under a system of capitalism will pale in comparison to progressivism's march to subjugation, stagnation and misery, if the progressives have their way. Alarmism? No, just a reality call from the ghosts who've suffered at the hands of such regressive and soul-destroying schemes.

Libertarian Preparation Part 7: Pursuing Wealth

Almost all of us pursue wealth. There are some people in society who have a different value system, and wealth means very little to them, but for most of us wealth represents security and acquisition of the means to do and experience things we enjoy -- to pursue happiness.

Free, capitalist countries have shown to be more prosperous than countries under some form of socialism, but great wealth has also shown to create class envy and warfare. It appears that many people haven't mastered the concept that wealth is created through productive activity, that there isn't a limited amount of money sitting somewhere that shrinks when someone becomes wealthy. If I start a business and make a million dollars, that doesn't take money away from anyone, it justs adds to the total amount of wealth, just as if I lose that million it doesn't take money away from others, unless there are people dependent on me making money and not losing it, such as an employee or supplier, but even then it doesn't directly take money from their amount, it just means they won't be creating their wealth off money I had been supplying for a productive activity on which they were dependent (and I was dependent on them, too). If I went out of business, the employee would not get any more paychecks from me, and the suppliers would not have my business.

We should be joyous when people create wealth, because it adds to the total amount of wealth. If I create a million dollars of wealth from a productive business, then I will spending it at stores, buying things, putting it in a savings account so that others can borrow it, investing in another business through stocks so the business can survive or grow, perhaps expanding my business and hiring more people who may be out of work.

Creating wealth is a good thing that helps others. It also means I'm not directly dependent on others to take care of my wants and needs -- I don't have to ask anyone to give me money, because I'm making my own. Ayn Rand once said, and I'm paraphrasing, that one of the best ways to fight poverty is to not be poor. But speaking of poverty, a wealthy society is also a more generous society. As I mentioned in another post, we've barely tapped into our charity potential, and charity is hampered by high taxes and the idea that government will take care of the poverty problem. As many libertarians, and other free, objective thinkers, have claimed, pertaining to inequality of wealth, is that the major cause for wealth inequality has been government intervention/regulation in the economy which favors some economic endeavors over others, thereby rewarding some buisness enterprises and punishing others, interfering with competition and blocking smaller players from rising through hard-work, better ideas and quality.

The idea that great wealth in a society causes consumerism and a materialistic society which slowly erodes culture and spiritual pursuits is also an unproven propostion that is contradicted in reality. America's great wealth, historically, has allowed more people to pursue spirituality and culture -- art, music, religion and spiritual diversity abound in this country. It's difficult to be spiritual and cultured in dire poverty. A mature society can separate business and soul-pursuit, or combine both with no damage to the spirit. Even in business for many people there's a deeper understanding of the spontaneous order that arises -- a type of beauty in the actions at play which aren't planned in a central government committee, but rather the results of millions and millions of free choices. 

We still have a problem with poverty in America, but pursuing and creating wealth is not the cause. A large part of the answer lies in an enlightened national mindset regarding wealth, and a separation of government and economy which allows the economy to grow and create more opportunities for people to create wealth.

Freedom, Insurance and Charity

From a libertarian perspective, simply put, it's not appropriate to force anyone to help anyone else. If you rob from someone who has money and give it to someone who has less or no money at all, it's still robbery, and there's no justification for such coercion. The state has no right to enforce obligations on citizens which violate property rights -- to me, this is a violation of property rights. The state has misused "public welfare" in order to steal from those who have in order to give to those who don't have.

On top of this robbery, the state has inefficiently used the money, created an unhealthy dependence and harmed more lives than it's helped by enslaving them to system of demeaning dependence.

However, the libertarian ideology doesn't suggest there's no alternative other than allowing the poor to suffer. The private sector is not impotent in the face of poverty and actually has good reasons to alleviate poverty to the extent possible. Wouldn't we all be better off with less poverty?

For the exigencies of life -- temporary unemployment, illness, loss of a bread winner in the home, or any such unforeseen change which causes financial hardship -- private insurance arrangements would be effective means of making up the shortfall in income until situations improve. These types of insurance arrangements wouldn't be difficult to create and would probably be profitable for the companies providing such services under competent, efficient management.

Would everyone pay for a policy? If they knew the government was no longer providing assistance, I think they would. It would become common knowledge that "social" insurance policies are a necessity in a world of uncertainties. With various levels of coverage, the costs could be set to fit into any budget according the estimated needs in emergency situations.

Whereas, now, government collects taxes then distributes assistance where supposedly needed --mostly in an inefficient, politically motivated fashion -- a private company collecting premiums would invest this money for much better returns, thus creating a profitable business. Private companies would also be better at eliminating manipulation of the system by malingerers. In an economy separated from the state, there would be less need for pay-outs because the economy would be in better shape with fewer ups and downs caused by government interference, and the much lower taxes would leave people with more of their money to buy policies for the periodic down-times. This would also be less demeaning than going to the government for assistance. Private company technology would provide the payouts more efficiently and timely and the threat of litigation would keep companies honest, especially with improved legal proceedings which don't favor the monetary power of big companies to roll over those with fewer resources. All this could be worked out to provide justice if we as a people insist on it. Competition would keep the cost of policies reasonable. Low cost subscriptions to information/watch dog associations could keep consumers informed of the best, most transparent companies which provide the best services.

There are so many better ways the private sector could handle unemployment and other temporary set-backs which individuals and businesses experience, it's incredible we haven't demanded this shift from state control. Regulation of unscrupulous business management would also be handled much more effectively in the private sector and a rational dispute-resolution system.

But what about the unfortunate in society? Would there be enough donations to charity to cover the many needs of society's most unfortunate -- those who can't help themselves or who need more assistance than most? I think there would be, especially when we all understand it's to our benefit as well as the recipients of charity. When charity is rightfully considered investment there could even be an actual return on investment when it comes to helping the ones who can eventually help themselves. There is the broad general return of making more people productive and growing the economy, and there could be arrangements where those who are helped to get a leg up repay a portion of the charity which is returned to donors. Smarter people than I could work out the plan, but it would go something like -- donor cards keeping account of donations, and when recipients become trained and secure employment a part of their pay is paid back to the charity organization and a portion returned to the donor and a portion is kept to offset charity given to those who can't help themselves. The more wealthy donors could decide to give with no return, but it would all be voluntary.

Whatever the final arrangement, or diverse arrangements competing for the best solutions, the point is to start going in the private sector direction and away from incompetent, wasteful state solutions.

Pursuit of happiness

Will Wilkerson wrote about a study showing conservatives are happier because they are less concerned with inequality, or some such footle. I read Wilkerson's blog every so often and never come away knowing what he believes, only there are some good questions and some bad questions,, and amidst all the nuance there may or may not be good or bad answers.

The study is too ridiculous to spend much time on, but it did make me think about equality, success and happiness. My "study" is based on many years of watching and studying people from all walks of life. I would rather look at what defines "inequality" in the first place. It's an impossible task if we're talking about varying degrees of wealth and position above the level of basic needs, but then that's my point. Many on the left look at equality/inequality in terms of wealth and position, yet this is limited and misleading criteria which indicates  political motive to prove a partisan point or establish a statist policy. A more useful look at equality/inequality would be aimed at enjoyment of life and community, happiness, comfort of living. Forget whether conservatives are happier than liberals because they, conservatives, aren't concerned with inequality -- are those deemed victims of inequality happy with their station in life? -- and in some cases, are they happier than those who are deemed better off?

Most cynics would sneer at what I'm about to write and make snide jabs about patronization and lack of experience with poverty or lower middle class life, but I grew up in poverty and lived in relative poverty until I was 30 years of age, so I write with experience and understanding of being "poor". Income alone doesn't determine poverty and poverty is not always a negative experience. Some of the happiest times of my life were when I had the least amount of money or possessions. I'm in the process of simplifying my life, now, getting rid of all the unneeded responsibilities in my life that are cumbersome, even if it means making less money.

Many subjects which the left use as examples of inequality are actually quite satisfied with their financial situation and position in life -- at least from my experience talking with hundreds of people, many have said they don't want the responsibilities of management, or business ownership, or any position that will demand a lot of their time they value more when used for recreation. It's the left's misunderstanding of the "little people" that's patronizing and off base -- for the most part. For someone to say a lady in Boise, Idaho, well-respected and loved in her community, comfortable in her little yellow house which accomodates her and her daughter, full of life and spirit, creative in her garden and who writes poetry as her favorite pasttime, but makes only enough for her basic needs, because that's all she needs and is satisfied with that, is not equal to a thrice divorced Wall Street broker with ulcers, a bad disposition, more enemies than friends, who uses cocaine just to stand his existence, is bogus. Taking money away from the broker and giving it to the lady in Boise is bogus, too -- the focus on money and position is misleading.

But many liberals would declare it's not fair for a reprobate to make hundreds of thousands of dollars on Wall Street while the nice lady in Boise is making only enough to get by. The lady in Boise, however, is doing fine -- much better than the reprobate -- the difference in income is meaningless. It's really offensive to this lady to tell her she suffers from the evils of inequality -- she might ask what is being measured.

Now, if the difference is greater, say a group of millionaires compared to people who don't have access to their basic needs and who are hungry, homeless, without transportation, ill-clothed for the weather and socially isolated, then inequality can be established based on material criteria; however, we're comparing small percentages of society and the unfortunate in these cases would be far worse off than even someone who has met their basic needs. Both conservatives and liberals are concerned with debilitating poverty because hardly anyone but a saint could find happiness and comfort in such conditions.

Our problem as a society, if we choose to see it as a problem, and I believe practically everyone does, is how to care for those who can't access, through no fault or choice of their own, even their most basic needs. These are different cases and fall outside choices based on value-judgements or meritocracy. 

The problem of starting with the premise that inequality in wealth and position equals inequality in ejoyment of life and happiness is that it's a false premise. If a person is creating their own good life, then they might build on things more important than wealth and status -- they might work on relationships, their mental capacity to reason and adjust to reality, their emotional capacity to experience life and relationships through joy, sadness, anger, compassion, sadness, happiness, etc -- and their spiritual life in order to establish meaning and purpose. On this basis inequality may exist in a different way -- the ones who are obsessed with material possession, position and social status may be inferior as actualized human beings to those who have learned how to live well and pursue happiness by more effective means.

The fact is that many people don't want the lifestyle and headaches that accompany wealth and position -- their value-judgements are much different. Some people do want the lifestyle and are willing to deal with extra responsibilites that accompany wealth and position -- but neither matter if a person doesn't learn how to live effectively and enjoy life. It seems that the obsession with money and position is bad for those who never learn how to live and is bad for those who are envious or angry because some have wealth in excess and others don't. But, in a fully functioning, free society everyone will find employment that pays for their basic needs.

If we continue to live in a society that measures success in terms of wealth, there will always be those who are unhappy because fortune smiles on one and not the other, or one has connections while the other has none, or one is the right color and the other is not, or one is the right sex and the other is not -- on and on until the only solution is to redistribute all the wealth. If we ever redistribute wealth in extreme measures, it won't add a whit to long-term happiness. As long as people are free to pursue happiness without coercion that prevents the pursuit, then each individual is free to apply their value-judgements according to their needs, wants and abilities. Rather than trying to create an impossible equality of results, perhaps it'd be better to vigilantly defend the right to pursue happiness in freedom, and create our own definition of happiness. Each person who diligently pursues their idea of happiness will find peace in the process, whether they find the perfect result or not. This, of course, is my opinion and I have no way of proving it. However, I do believe a society of free people is filled with the joy of inspiring endeavors -- a society of envy, hatred, class warfare and materialism sans spirituality will always be in conflict and turmoil.

I'm not a conservative, but does it make me happier to believe this? No, but it makes feel more centered and less phony. I'd be happier if liberals looked for real solutions to the problem of helping those who can't help themselves rather than spout anti-capitalist propaganda and promote class-warfare and redistribution schemes which don't help at all. Every person who utilizes the capitalist system to pay for their lives means there's that much more for contributions to organizations who are providing solutions. Rationalizing failed government programs and beating up on conservatives doesn't help.

Trying to engineer "equality" based on money and status will always be politically motivated and unhelpful in addressing the real concern of debilitating poverty in which cases the poverty, in a free country, is only another symptom of much more serious underlying disorders -- these we can all help with to find solutions. Those who are unable, through no fault or choice of their own, to pursue happiness are the ones we should focus on if we have concern, not some abstract, politically-popular idea of "equality".