Whenever I discuss welfare, I offer the suggestion that private charity would be a better choice, for two technical reasons. First, because it is not bound by the bureaucratic rules of welfare it cannot be gamed by the unworthy and the worthy will not be excluded on a technicality. Second, because private charity lacks the huge bureaucracy of government, much more of the money gets to the needy rather than being depleted in overhead costs.

The response is almost invariably the same. Those who support government welfare argue that private charity cannot replace welfare, because they claim that people simply will not give enough to provide the assistance welfare does.

In some ways they may be right, private citizens are unlikely to give money to those who simply do not want to work, or people with rather dubious "disabilities", provided aid simply because their diagnosis matches the letter of the government regulations. But I doubt that is what they have in mind. No, what they mean is that, without the government there to force people to give, greedy individuals would let the poor starve in the streets.

That assumption raises some serious questions about welfare.

Now, I think that the government has very few specific functions it is supposed to fulfill, but, even if we allow for a broader mission for government, I would assume that most people still think the government should engage only in those actions which represent the will of the majority of the people. Otherwise, there is little reason for all of our democratic institutions.

But if a majority of people would not give money to help the poor but for government forcing them to do so, then how do we justify doing so? If the majority is opposed to helping the poor, to the point where private charity would not be able to replace welfare, then what possible justification is there for it?

It would seem to me the only possible argument is that the majority of people are "wrong" and that a few "elevated" people int he government, endowed with a higher moral sense, should be allowed to tell those of use who are less morally perfect what to do. But that raises a question I have asked many times, if we are all so morally inferior to the government, how do we immoral majority manage to elect these paragons of virtue? And why are citizens, whoa re immoral when private individual, suddenly so morally improved by being elected to office?

No, the truth is that one is not morally superior by entering government. Welfare is instituted by the government for three reasons. First because the average citizen does think that people should help out those less fortunate. Second, because politicians know they can appear generous by giving away other people's money. And finally because welfare recipients form a reliable voting block, and securing their votes is relatively cheap, especially as it is paid with taxpayer money.

But that first  reason argues that citizens would not be as tightfisted as many suggest. People in general do believe that the poor should receive some assistance, though they may disagree about the amount. However, that argues for allowing them to direct their money themselves, rather than letting the government spend their money as the government sees fit.

In fact, with private charity, the poor would probably fare better. Without the massive overhead of government welfare bureaucracy, a larger percentage of the money would actually reach the needy. And without government rules determining who can get assistance and who can't, truly needy peoplle who do not presently qualify may get aid*. The rigid rules necessitated by government programs eman that people will get aid by meeting arcane rules, leading to those in the know gaming the system while those in actual need will often not qualify due to some technical detail. Private aid will not have such rigid rules, and so will avoid both pitfalls.

And, of course, private charity has one additional benefit, people will give only what they want. No one will be forced to give more because the state says they should. And, on the other hand, no one will stop giving money because they think the government is taking care of it. People will give as much or as little as they thin fit, and to those they think deserving. And isn't that truly what we should desire, rather than a system where people are coercively robbed of their money which is then distributed based on rules ratehr than need?

So, why do we ask the government to do this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* When I worked for social services, I was always unhappy with medical assistance cases. I had dozens of people suffering from dubious back injuries and mental illnesses who had full coverage while truly needy people were denied. I had one woman who had a lung removed due to lung cancer who could get no aid as she drove a bus to support herself and was thus not "disabled". Likewise, an 18 year old who had bone removed to treat cancer could not get a doctor to certify she would be unable to work for 12 months and so could not receive any aid, while every indigent fellow who went and paid off the local quack had full coverage as well as social security money. That would be unlikely to happen if private organizations were deciding where to direct money.