Ray Bradbury said, ""

Charity v. Welfare III

Previous posts:

• Charity v. Welfare I
• Charity v. Welfare II
  

In charity, the acquisition of funds is determined by individual donors who choose some definite charitable effort as the highest valued alternative for their wealth. In government welfare, the acquisition of funds is determined by a small group of individuals who extract money by force from individuals who would otherwise use their wealth differently according to their own plans. In the former, the relation between the individual and the organization is peaceful and within the orbit of equal rights. In the latter, the relation is that of coercion, with the rights of some group evaluated to be superior to the rights of the individual. In the former, the individual must choose between which of the various alternatives available to him will yield him the most satisfaction, which charitable effort will yield the greatest benefit. In the latter, a government official must evaluate the benefit to one individual as higher than the harm which will inevitably befall another individual. This difference in the basis for decisions marks an inherent and irreducible conflict between the two systems: a government official inherently cannot make the same decision as a private donor does. The different basis for decisions marks a fundamental chasm between the two methods of action between which no bridge exists other than the end toward which both aim.
 
In charity, the response to social ills is determined and coordinated by the collective decisions of a great many people. They react to disasters, coordinating through their pool of knowledge the most efficient use of charitable donations toward the resolution of a social ill. In government welfare, the response to social ills is determined by the decisions of an inherently far smaller portion of the population. Its response to disasters is divorced from the pool of knowledge necessary to coordinate the myriad decisions which must be made, and instead relies upon the inherently inadequate knowledge of a few whose plans are to replace those of the many. The acquisition of funds for welfare is involuntary, independant from the mechanism of coordination which prevails in charity. Some one man or a few men must decide for a great many individuals, how much wealth they require for the means. This decision cannot rest on the pool of knowledge of the majority, cannot rest on the principles of supply and demand. It must rest on an arbitrary allocation of funds acquired through the levy of a tax or an inflationary monetary policy. Some one man or a few men must decide, on an arbitrary basis, how much money is needed for their plans, and extract that amount from the general population. The decision regarding the method of extracting this wealth, through taxation or inflation, rests on an entirely different basis than that of charity.

The decision-making process of charitable organizations is based upon the increase in well-being of all parties involved. No one must be harmed in the process. No one has a stake in the process other than that determined by his desire to help a fellow man by the method he believes is most efficient in this end. Individual donors may debate about which peaceful means may bring about the most well-being, but these debates are characterized by a weighing between the efficiency and necessity of various peaceful means, on the basis of mutual prosperity.

The decision-making process of government welfare is based on the evaluation of some means over the well-being of some group. Someone is inevitably harmed in the process. Individuals therefore have a (sometimes literal) stake in the process. The decision becomes political, each individual and group vying to avoid being that which is harmed. This political strife will be characterized by persuading the decision-making body which group has precedence over another group. One party will emphasize the needs of the Elderly, to be opposed by another party which points out the burden those needs will impose on the Middle Class. Another party will condemn both for neglecting the needs of the Poor, which over-ride the decisions of both groups. Each party will seek to extract benefits from another group by proxy of the government. The decisions of each party, founded in the justification of harm, ensures that no matter which party gains power, some portion of the population will be harmed. Regardless of which group is at some point given precedence over other groups, someone will be harmed. The nature of the political process is inextricably linked with harm. Regardless of which means the government chooses, the very nature of government welfare ensures civil conflict.

The civil conflict which arises out of the very nature of the decision-making process, is characterized by the justification of harm. The cost of any party's policy is harm, the cost-benefit analysis of charitable organizations cannot apply to the political debate. No political party has ever come out for abject poverty, misery, and filth: each party proclaims its ends are prosperity and happiness. Each party, if honest, will focus its debates upon its evaluation that the needs of some group outweigh the rights of another group, on the means having accepted the universal ends. If dishonest, the party will obscure the role harm must inevitably play, and focus its debate solely on the end which it advances. The latter method frequently occurs in democratic nations and republics in the form of the fallacy of the illicit minor: "my opponent is against X policy, therefore he is against prosperity/freedom/equality/the Elderly, etc." The diversion of the debate away from the specific means to be chosen, is often simultaneous with a gradual change in the political lexicon to make the fallacy of the illicit minor appear more persuasive through equivocation. Words such as "equality" and "freedom" will adopt new meanings, grow to encompass their antonyms, and become meaningless in the process. The political process will corrupt the language of the nation as words become political instruments for coercion, each opposing group chipping away at their meaning until the words become nothing but clubs with which to beat the other groups into submission.

And this all occurs before the government even begins to use the money.

Next: more on the qualitative difference in the decision-making process, the political process, and the actual use of funds.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 21, 2005 08:27 EST | Permalink | comments (1) |
economics

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

#1  24 June 2005 - 09:43

 

Do you have a solution?

Anonymous

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit Here.