Let us start with an experiment. Let us imagine a nation where poverty was once very bad. It is a small, desert nation, with only a limited amount of agriculture along a few rivers. As a result, the small amount of linen they grew was outrageously expensive, and imported cloth was almost equally expensive. So, when hard times hit, and times were tight, people simply dressed in rags, wearing their old garments until they fell apart.

Eventually, a kindly king decided to provide clothing for all of his subjects. So, he passed laws and bought up all the linen in the realm and had seamstresses make it into clothing. He then doled it out among his citizens. And this continued year in and year out for centuries. In fact, the clothing dole was the sole source of clothing, as the laws said it was a crime to buy or sell clothing. However, years later, a clever individual points out that the clothing dole itself is keeping clothes in short supply, and that allowing a private market in clothing, as well as allowing the import of cloth, would lead to more and better clothing.

Of course the immediate response would be "What, you expect only the rich to have clothing!" or "You expect the poor to go naked!"

But we know a free market does work in clothing, as evidenced by our general lack of nudity, even among the poor. Even in nations which can produce little fabric of their own, either the free market or foreign charity provides more than enough clothing. The public provision of clothing is in no way necessary for clothes to be owned by all*.

But before you feel superior to those poor benighted souls, think about our own beliefs. Many cases exist where we currently believe that, because the government does it, the government must do it.

For example, how many times have you heard someone ask "You want to eliminate welfare? Should we just let them starve?" Think about what that argument really means. The questioner obviously thinks the poor should be helped, but without the state forcing help it won't happen.

Perhaps the best response is to point out that they are still free to help, as is anyone else. The only changes will be that the tremendous overhead of government will be removed, and that those who do not believe in charity will not be forced to pay for it. In other words, for those who want to give to charity, every dime will now reach the recipients, rather than most being lost on government overhead.

Actually, that won't be the only benefit. There is one other. Government welfare is rule driven and reliable, people learn to game the system and come to live on welfare. Private charity is not bound by rules, so can both refuse to pay, or pay those who do not meet strict definitions. In addition, it is not reliable, so cannot become a source of perpetual income. By being more arbitrary and more subject to inconsistent administration, it is much less likely to be abused than welfare.

The point being, those who oppose government aid are not, as some accuse, opposed to charity, or interested in seeing the poor suffer. We simply think that the state is both an inefficient way to deliver aid, and a dangerous one as well. It tends to create a dependent class when public charity, driven by rules and consistently provided, is made available. It is not charity we oppose, but charity via the government**.

Perhaps this will make it more clear. Let us suppose that you cut your hair by sticking your head into a wood chipper. Suppose I were to say that I think that is a bad idea and I use a barber. Would you say that I am opposed to personal grooming? Or that I might just see a risk to which you are oblivious? Well, I see using the state to conduct charity as akin to shoving your hair into the wood chipper.

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

* I originally used a similar argument when discussing public education, as many, even conservatives, seem to believe ending public education will mean "only the rich will be educated", ignoring both charity and the savings inherent in a private competitive system. Not to mention the huge amount already being spent on public education, and that system's notorious high overhead, with some districts having more administrators than teachers.

** Many also object to the coercive nature of government charity, taking money from citizens whether they want to give or not, leaving them no choice about how much or whether to give, as well as leaving them no choice about recipients. And that too is a legitimate complaint, but I think far and away the most persuasive argument is the horrible damage done by government welfare, which should beenough to convince even those who believe in coercive giving that government welfare is a bad idea. So, for the moment, we can ignore questions of whether or not it is proper to fund charity through coercion.

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

POSTSCRIPT

To refute those who argue that people lack the funds to pay what the government does now, I would offer up my earlier post "Private Charity", from which this post gets its name.

POSTSCRIPT II

And, though I didn't mention it earlier, my hands have returned to their painful state, making even these few posts very hard to get out. So, if I do not reply, please forgive me, as I am trying to rest them as much as I can, or as much as my compulsion to write allows.