A liberal friend of mine and I recently had a discussion about private charity vs. government welfare. She feels that the American public is inherently greedy and selfish, and, were it not for forceful government welfare programs, America's private citizens would not provide charity for the poor, the homeless, children, the elderly, those with medical needs, etc. I'm able to explain to her the philosophical and theoretical arguments about why government welfare programs are undesirable, but I had to admit to her that I really don't have any statistics or actual numbers to back up my philosophy/theories.
Does anyone have any actual data that show how effective private charity was in America before the government got involved, how private charity has atrophied as government welfare programs have grown, how private charities are more efficient at distributing aid than government, etc.?
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
There is some great stuff on this in "For a New Liberty," but I don't remember the chapter.
Though I haven't read them, you might be interested in checking out David Beito's book, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, Lowell Galloway's and Richard Vedder's book, Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in the Twentieth Century, Henry Hazlitt's books, The Conquest of Poverty and Man vs. The Welfare State, and Hans Sennholz' The Politics of Unemployment. I'm not sure if they'll have exactly what you're looking for, but they might be able to direct you towards stuff that does. Also, Mises' The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality is pretty decent on this topic.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Alexis de Tocqueville ponders the same question in "Memoir on Pauperism" influenced by his trip to England he helps shed light on why private charity is better at helping the poor than government handouts. Without guarantees it actually helps the timid man embrace his problems.
Charity is itself a selfish act. There is no true altruism that Ayn Rand has so much contempt for.
Thanks for the assistance so far, all. I've been skimming through some of the recommended reading and it's been helpful.
solos:Charity is itself a selfish act. There is no true altruism that Ayn Rand has so much contempt for.
Haha, I actually agree with you there, but I'm just using the word "selfish" in its most-widely-used sense. Perhaps instead of "selfish" I should have put "averse to charity."
Hey, why should you be forced to prove her assertions for her? She says Americans are inherently seflish? Well make her prove it! Statistically speaking, Americans are one of the most giving people on the planet, so the truth is the converse. As far as books go, David Kelley's A Life of One's Own delves into the subject of private vs public charity.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Freiheit: A liberal friend of mine and I recently had a discussion about private charity vs. government welfare. She feels that the American public is inherently greedy and selfish, and, were it not for forceful government welfare programs, America's private citizens would not provide charity for the poor, the homeless, children, the elderly, those with medical needs, etc. I'm able to explain to her the philosophical and theoretical arguments about why government welfare programs are undesirable, but I had to admit to her that I really don't have any statistics or actual numbers to back up my philosophy/theories. Does anyone have any actual data that show how effective private charity was in America before the government got involved, how private charity has atrophied as government welfare programs have grown, how private charities are more efficient at distributing aid than government, etc.?
You may want to print these:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/The%202002%20Generosity%20Index~~%20Comparing%20Charitable%20Giving%20in%20Canada%20and%20the%20US-genindex.pdf
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity.pdf
I would go straight to an economic argument, how the wealthy create jobs, investment etc which allows for upward mobility and the creation of wealth, increases in the standard of living etc.
A useful technique I have been experimenting with, is turning a false position back on itself. Usually my opposite recognizes the truth when the words are re-arranged to reflect reality. Such as.
Freiheit:the American public is inherently greedy and selfish, and, were it not for forceful government welfare programs, America's private citizens would not provide charity for the poor, the homeless, children, the elderly, those with medical needs, etc.
The American government is inherently greedy and selfish, and were it not for forceful government taxation programs, America's private citizens would not have to rebuild bridges in Iraq or pay for the funerals of it's young men and women serving in the military. The money never makes it's way to the poor or needy, see New Orleans or the inner cities of Philadelphia, New York, Detroit etc.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Another link to throw into the pot.
Charitable giving in the United States is estimated to be $306.39 billion in 2007, exceeding $300 billion for the first time in history... Every type of public charity receiving donations saw gains in 2007. The subsectors examined in Giving USA are: Arts/Culture/Humanities; Education; Environment/Animals; Health; Human Services; Public-Society Benefit; International Affairs; and Religion. Foundations saw a decrease. Private foundations are not technically a form of public charity, but are examined in the report, as are community and operating foundations... Presidential campaigns raised $580.4 million in 2007, according to the Federal Election Commission. That is less than one-quarter of one percent of the $306 billion raised for charitable purposes.
Every type of public charity receiving donations saw gains in 2007. The subsectors examined in Giving USA are: Arts/Culture/Humanities; Education; Environment/Animals; Health; Human Services; Public-Society Benefit; International Affairs; and Religion. Foundations saw a decrease. Private foundations are not technically a form of public charity, but are examined in the report, as are community and operating foundations...
Presidential campaigns raised $580.4 million in 2007, according to the Federal Election Commission. That is less than one-quarter of one percent of the $306 billion raised for charitable purposes.
This is on top and above the forced charity that the State doles out in their names.
Yep, a bunch of selfish individuals who only give to those who may further their ends in some concrete way like political campaigns.
And from the horse's mouth showing a relationship between government spending and charity giving in certain fields such as education.
I'm writing a term paper (due in a little more than 12 hours :/) on welfare. Most economic schools agree that welfare is economically bad, and the only way it's rationalized is via socialist ethics, which needless to say aren't that rational.
More to the point though, government welfare is VERY BAD. The Welfare supporters often point to numbers showing that the government donates more than the private sector. This doesn't mean anything. First off, the government will often monetize it's welfare debt, meaning that prices in the long run go up, meaning the welfare recipients now are going to be worse off in the future, and so is everyone else. Second off, the government cannot calculate who does and does not need welfare. Instead, they have to set up restrictions that essentially keep people in the welfare bracket out of fear or laziness. You're not allowed to hold a job or mary while on welfare. Recipients have a guarenteed form of income, and while it may be less than they could make working a job, the risk of a job (be it that it's not a definate form of income or perhapse because the job doesn't give them more than what they get on welfare, and they can't supplement their welfare receivings with at least some form of earnings). Governments have to arbitrarily discriminate against who does and does not get welfare, and often times the people not recieving it may actually need it, and the people that do recieve it have no need for it.
The example of this I'm using in my essay comes from a book by Alex Koltowitz called "There are no Children Here" (it's nothing special. It's the kind of literature you'd expect to come out of the progressive era. It was required reading for the course... so yeah.) Basically, there's a mom who has 8 kids and no way of providing for her kids save for welfare since the neighborhood is so violent and she needs to supervise them. She gets taken off welfare because she lets her ex-husband use their house as a mailing address since he has no place of his own. In the mother's same neighborhood there is a gang leader who's collecting welfare because he can, but doesn't need it at all since he makes his living in drug dealing and extortion. The government can only function by selecting a general group of people and entitling them to the program, while an individual can invest in another individuals situation. An individual giving to charity is much more capable of calculating and evaluating what situations to give to than a government who sets a standard of situation they will give welfare to. Recipients can't artificially fabricate a situation to get welfare. They need to be in a situation they think others will be sympathetic to and most times this means more suffering than it's worth for people to cheat the system.
Donny with an A: Lowell Galloway's and Richard Vedder's book, Out of Work: Unemployment
Does anyone happen to have a link to this in e-book format?
Freiheit:She feels that the American public is inherently greedy and selfish, and, were it not for forceful government welfare programs, America's private citizens would not provide charity for the poor, the homeless, children, the elderly, those with medical needs, etc.
I can't understand how liberals and other welfare proponents believe that people are not willing to voluntarily donate to the poor and those in need, yet are willing to have it compulsively taken by the state. The state follows trends, and then tries to take credit for it. But this idea that elected officials implement policies that the masses would reject as individuals is inconsistent, in my view.
John Stossel has a nice section on the crowding out of private charities and mutual benefit organizations in his special "John Stossel Goes to Washington". It has recently been re-loaded on YouTube, if you are interested.
I was wondering, does anyone know of private charity organizations that openly campaign against welfare or to educate people on the negative effects of government intervention? Also, is there such a thing as a for-profit private charity?
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and class less and free. But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see.
There's room at the top they are telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill.
freewheeler:Also, is there such a thing as a for-profit private charity?
Google.org (wikipedia entry) is the philanthropy arm of Google, they do scientific research on energy and poverty problems, and they are for-profit. As I understood it, they intend to make the organization self-sustainable by serving as an investment fund and commercializing products based on the research.
With regard to more traditional charities sponsored by the general public, I'm not sure there are because it would be a public relations nightmare with the donors. If it wasn't for the fact that people cringe at the thought of a for-profit charity, I think it would be possible to have charities that clearly state that per each African kid they educate to 4th grade level, they pay themselves $20, or something like that. Also, a strong incentive to go non-profit is taxes. ;)
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
The aren't any real statistics measuring this stuff because it is all lies and distortions. The current statistics pouring out of government are for one purpose to justify more government. The are not going to come and say gee, we cause more problems than we solve so lets shut down.
The other problem you will encounter is that without the welfare state there was no reason to keep national statistics on things. The charities took care of these things. My mother worked 30 years in a religious hospital. There are thousands of these in existence because poor people needed hospitals.
So we are left with giant welfare bureaucracies crowding out hard working charities for the good of us all.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap