Private Charities Part IV: The Freedom Reason

Freedom or security? Which do you value more?

I believe most would agree they value both the freedom to make their own decisions, and the security of knowing the fruits of their labor will not be illegitimately taken from them whether through violence, theft, judicial dishonesty, catastrophic events, or even heavy taxation. Unfortunately as ideal as it would be to maximize both freedom and security, these two ideals are often inversely correlated. Stated another way, in order to obtain greater security, some freedom must be relinquished or sacrificed and vice versa.

A case and point of sacrificing freedom on the altar of security is public assistance programs. In order to increase security of basic provisions through means of government welfare, taxpayers are forced to relinquish freedom of choosing where and how to spend the fruits of their labor secondary to increased taxes. The forced infringement of freedoms is another reason I favor an increased role of private charities. 

Freedom Reasons:

1. Preface

I want to reiterate I am not against all forms of government managed charity. As detailed in my Basic Needs Part I post, I do believe the wealthiest nation in history has an obligation to meet the basic needs of its citizens. I do, however, support maximum limits, repayment plans, and other disincentives for utilizing public funds.

Furthermore, I see a role for government managed charity above and beyond the meeting the most basic of needs through taxation. If citizens are all about giving to government charity, by all means allow them to do so, but do not force those who do not believe in the grandeur of government assistance programs to financially support them. I believe governmental charity above and beyond the meeting of the most basic needs for a limited time period should abide by the same rules as all other charities. Specifically, the need to raise their own support through donations, and the limitation of only being able to distribute what they have brought in.

2. Citizens should have the freedom to pursue our own ends by our own means. 

• Flowing from my belief in small government (see Voting Issues post), government should strive to stay out of both defining individual ends and the individual’s means to their chosen ends.

I acknowledge some freedom must be surrendered in order to achieve a degree of security. However, I believe it is primarily the role of government to establish and preserve freedom and secondarily to protect its citizen’s freedom (security). For without established freedoms what is the government truly protecting?

Centrally planned systems appear designed for failure. When citizens are forced to support centralized systems, we lose our freedom of choice which frequently leads to resentment and distrust amongst each other and against the centrally planned system. For the larger the system becomes, the greater the likelihood individuals will disagree with certain provisions, yet continue to be forced to support it. Taking a few mainstream social issues as examples:

• What if one does not agree with providing disability to alcoholics?
• What if one does not agree with providing health care for ________?
• Such as pain medications for drug addicts.
• What if one does not desire to fund abortions?
• What if one disagree with subsidizing special interest groups?
• Farmers, dairy industry, oil, green energy, etc.

The oft resulting (and logical) outcome are citizens organizing and demonstrating against those parts they are for or against, hoping some political figure or potentially even more effective, some celebrity will listen. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, $3.28 billion and >12,000 lobbyists were accounted for in 2012. It may be better for all if the time, effort, and energy invested in lobbying and demonstrations would be used towards promoting individual freedom of choice rather than attempting to change public policy. 

While I do acknowledge democratic election of representatives is superior to numerous other forms of government, I fear democracy can lead to suppression of minority groups and incentivizes the formation of political and economical alliances, leading to further conflict. I would suggest a more libertarian approach would serve the interests of citizens, especially citizens of a minority (not in race but in issues), to a much greater extent. A libertarian philosophy also lessens the problem of attempting to answer the impossible question of how to redistribute wealth

(Who is wealth taken from? How is it taken? How much is taken? Who is it given to? For what purpose is it given/spent?)

by increasing individual choice through decreased government intervention.

3. Private means of increasing security are available, it’s called insurance.

• Health care, property damage (mortgage, auto, crop, etc.), disability, unemployment, life, malpractice (sorry I work in the medical field...), travel, and many more.
• While a person may not be pleased with the price of security, an insurance product may be individual designed for any desire.
• However, recognizing the true cost of security via increase transparency rather than clouded behind governmental bureaucracy should be celebrated.

Insurance is the private market’s answer to increasing security. Insurance allows individuals to determine their own optimal level of security. Outside of a national military, domestic law enforcement, and judicial system, most all other securities may be achieved through insurance.

4. If private charities are underfunded, it seems the public has spoken. In effect saying: “No, we choose not to fund assistance programs designed to _________.”

As already mentioned, I do see a role of the federal government to provide for the most basic of needs. However, if we truly wish to boast we are a country built on freedom, we must also be a country willing to accept the collective sum of individual choices, even if we do not agree with our companions’ self-determined ends and the means they pursue to achieve their chosen ends.

5. Social Dysfunction

Loss of freedom and forced support of ideals one may not adhere to also increases the risk of social dysfunction. Rather than a system of community, cohesiveness, compassion, generosity, and gratefulness founded on freedom, we have largely adopted a public assistance system founded on force and impersonal handouts. I fear forced support of any project, regardless of its perceived “good” for the “whole of society”, will produce a harvest of resentment, distrust, and division (defined as “class warfare” when applied to income redistribution programs). 

While I recognize a certain degree of security is needed for a well-functioning society, I believe it is the role of government to first and foremost establish the freedoms of all individuals and secondarily protect these freedoms. Unfortunately, through reckless spending on subsidies, favors to special interest groups (often not for the good of the people but rather garnering votes), unwise foreign aid, and other pet projects, I fear our freedoms will continue to be eroded under the banner of security and protectionism.

As cited in my post: Private Charities Part II: The Economic Reason, public assistance programs currently account for 60% of our national revenue (92% if you include social security). There is little doubt in my mind the American people will become slave to the lender secondary to federal assistance programs, various state programs, and a $16 trillion federal deficit. I encourage all to read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt to further understand how economic freedom and all other freedoms are intricately linked. 

Although I do not believe an increase in the role of private charities is the magic bullet for solving welfare and social issues, I do believe it achieves better outcomes, lowers cost, promotes individual freedom and choice, and dissipates social dysfunction. 

Next Post’s Topic: Private Charities Part V: Common Objections