Ray Bradbury said, ""

Charity v. Welfare II: Means of Acquisition

In my previous post on the differences between voluntary charitable organizations and government welfare programs, I highlighted the harmful effects of taxation and inflation. I will here go further into the differences between the means of acquiring wealth. I'll continue this later, with a look at the differences in economic calculation within both systems.

The goal of government welfare programs may be said to be identical with the goals of charity: to increase the well-being of others. It is the means chosen to bring about this goal, which marks the vast differences between charity and welfare programs. The means fall into two areas: the acquisition of funds, and the use of these funds.

Charitable organizations acquire their funds through the peaceful and voluntary donations of individuals who value charity higher than the myriad alternative uses for the wealth they donate. Coercion does not enter into the relation between donors and the charitable organizations. Individuals at no point are forced to choose a less valued alternative. No one is harmed in the acquisition of charitable funds.

Government welfare programs acquire their funds through either coerced payment or the fraudulent exchange of inflated currency. The acquisition of the wealth comes about by a means which substitutes the government's scales of values for the individual's: taxation forces an individual to choose an alternative less valued to him, and inflation compels an individual to value those means selected by the government artificially higher than he would otherwise. Both replace the plans of the many, with the plans of the few. The reason for their coercive nature is precisely because a majority of individuals possess plans different than those of the government for their wealth. The plans of the government supersede those of the public, and require coercion to undertake. The acquisition of funds for government welfare programs is not dependent on the valuations of individuals, and is in fact antithetical to their own scale of values. Both taxation and inflation harm people, regardless of  what the government does later with the money. Every act of government benevolence, must first involve an act of government malevolence. The very acquisition of funds for government welfare programs harms people, in utter contrast with the acquisition by charitable organizations.

The harm the acquisition of funds for government welfare programs inherently causes, makes necessary a decision which does not apply to charitable organizations. Government must ask whether the goal is commensurate with the inherently harmful means of acquiring the funds. Government must decide whether the benefits of a program outweigh the harm which inherently occurs through its very existence. Is it worth raising income taxes to 90 percent, in order to provide X amount of money to people over 65 years old? Is it worth sustaining a chronic 15 percent inflation rate, in order to build a hydroelectric dam? Is national healthcare worth a high tax rate and increased punishments for tax evasion? Government will seek to mitigate this harm by further means, which also enter into the consideration. Is it worth sustaining a 15 percent inflation and a comprehensive system of price fixes, in order to build up a delapidated region? The question of how much harm is justified, must be decided upon a basis other than the individuals. Someone must decide which people must be harmed for the sake of the program. The very existence of the question, signals the rejection of equal rights. The rights of some are given precedence over the rights of others. The former group is to benefit at the expense of the latter group. The decision of which group is to be harmed, cannot be decided on the basis of equal rights or economics. Some factor outside the individuals involved must be invoked: the welfare of the state, Zeitgeist, G-d's will, the Poor, the Elderly, etc. It is by some arbitrary value upon which the decision must be based. This value out-weighs the value of equal rights, justifies the harm which must come to some select group. Its precedence over the individual requires that the individual submit by force to it. After all, what say does one man have compared to the welfare of the state? The acquisition of funds does not depend on the values of the individuals, but the strength with which the over-riding value is enforced.

Next: the difference in utilization of resources between charitable organizations and government welfare programs.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 18, 2005 12:24 EST | Permalink | comments (2) |
politics, economics

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Comments:

#1  20 June 2005 - 01:09

 

The pre-dominant overriding factor in determining the distrbution of common funds is so obvious as to be overlooked: the prestige and self-esteem of the politicans who make those decisions.

Suppose, Rep. X runs the super-approriations committee, the all-power arm of government which controls who is taxed and how much, and who and what is subsized and how much.

Common sense would tell you that Rep. X is going to make his choices based on utilitarian goals (the most good for the most people). But once you consider how Rep. X got to be Rep. X, you realize that is not going to be the case.

Rep. X is an elected official. He became an elected official by getting more votes than anyone else. He got more votes than anyone else by being more likeable than anyone else. And since Rep. X has one of the most powerful seats in the country, he's more likeable than alot of other likeable politicans.

How did Rep. X get to be so likeable, more likeable than the rest of his competition? He worked at it all his life! His entire life has been devoted to making people like him. In fact, in order for Rep. X to rise to the top of a multi-layered, cutthroat political world, his entire psycho-epistemological worldview, his whole metaphysical reason for existance would have to be focused on getting people to like him. That's who rises to the top in our political system.

Overly religious men are not likely to rise to the top, since very religious men are bound to say very religious things which alot of people don't like. Same with philosophical people, or capitalist-prone people, or individually minded people; they're going to state philosophical truth, economic realty, or assert independent thought which may people not like them. They're not going to rise to the top like Rep. X did.

And getting back to Rep. X: What kind of policies is he going to enact? This man whose entire philosophy and mindset is geared toward getting people to like him? Why, they're going to be policies which get the most people to like him the most!

Therefore, Representative X is going to see no problem with confiscating the large wealth of one hardworking, virtuous person to give to 1000 derilicts. That gives him a net profit of 999 people who like him! He's going o have no problem with building a big uselss hydroelectric dam which thousands will ogle at, while more efficacious go unbuilt. That just means more attention focused on his accomplishments!

This philosophical mindset spans all parties. The Repubicans who get elected are those who use--and misuse--conservative ideology to best get people to like them. When they get in power, they too end up giving away money to the most people they can. It's a problem inherient in our democratic political system. It's one which is destroying the body politic in slow motion, while reasonable people look on at the obvious disaster about to ensue.

Protagonist

Anonymous

#2  20 June 2005 - 14:44

 

Hey Tom! Had to pop over here and read your posts. Economics is not my strong suit, but I could tell your arguments were making sense in the comment section over at BoP. Thanks a bunch. You make some strong distinctions between charity and government subsidies.
Mark

Longinus62

Comments: