Private Charities Part V: Common Objections

After completing multiple posts on the potential advantages of private charities, I wanted to conclude with addressing a handful of common objections. It is my hope I have been able to effectively present my case of favoring private charities undergirded by private donations of time, talents, and treasures, rather than public assistance programs founded on forced support. All the while avoiding the pitfall of glorifying them to a point where I show them to be a magic bullet to cure all shortcomings of public welfare programs.

Fears/Objections -

1. Underfunded
1. Concern:
1. The concern of underfunding is perhaps the loudest war drum defending the need for public assistance programs. It is feared without a central collector and distributor (federal government) of welfare, those individuals in need will be unable to acquire the necessary assistance to meet their needs. This will result in unneeded and unjustified suffering as the resources exist to alleviate such suffering. Taken to an extreme, it is the “people will be dying the in streets” objection.
2. Rebuttal:
1. I still see the federal government serving as lender of last resort. (see Basic Level of Care Part I)
2. I believe citizens should retain the freedom to choose the level of welfare provided to their fellow citizens. (see Private Charities Part IV: The Freedom Reason)
• Actuality Junkie: 
• "If the charity cannot raise the funds it requires, then the people have spoken. Forcing a moral decision to be charitable on your neighbor via legislation for fear that they may not share your generosity is an abomination." 
• Maybe not an abomination but force typically only breeds bitterness and resentment.
3. I remain unconvinced private charities would remain underfunded.
• Decreasing central government welfare spending does NOT reduce total capital in the country. Freeing up capital may provide increased investment in the private sector which may lead to increased private jobs leading to decreased need for welfare.
• Somewhat of a stretch, but I do believe it will happen to some extent.
4. Social pressures will motivate the least generous individuals and businesses to become more generous.
• Example
I, and I believe others, would be more inclined to purchase products/services from those individuals/businesses known for being generous rather than those known for being greedy. Consumer preference would therefore provide social pressures for individuals and businesses to be generous with their profits.
5. In response to "people will be dying in the streets", the world reached a population of greater than 6 billion people without the aid of the United States public assistance programs. (and largely due to population increases in developing countries, not first world countries with large public assistance programs)







2. Unequal distribution
1. Concern: 
1. Similar in nature to the underfunded fear, the unequal distribution fear is a localized form of underfunding in which it is perceived total available resources exist to help all in need, however resources are insufficiently distributed to meet all the needs. 
• In particular, it is feared wealthier geographical areas will have greater giving capacities through increased collections as compared to poorer areas. This will result in an unequal distribution of charity. 
2. Perhaps of greater concern (to me at least), is the unequal distribution of charity to minorities (gender, age, race, ethnicity, etc. discrimination).
2. Rebuttal
1. Preface: I do believe unequal distribution would occur, however I remain unconvinced this is a negative consequence.
2. Unequal distribution may result in those in need moving to areas with excess supply (charity) resulting in a more even distribution of individuals requesting assistance. In addition, such an equal distribution (or equilibrium) may allow communities to more effectively address not only financial needs, but emotional and knowledge needs as well.
• May eliminate the “projects”, section 8 housing, tracts, etc.
3. Those who are concerned about unequal distribution would have the freedom to restrict the distribution of funds to the area of their choosing, in this case those areas which are most impoverished.




3. Increased Crime
1. Concern: 
1. Reducing public assistance programs will result in people becoming more desperate who may then resort to criminal activities to provide for their self-defined needs. 
2. In addition, another valid concern is society will spend resources on law enforcement, judicial systems, and jails when it may have been more effectively spent on providing welfare.
2. Rebuttal
1. I very much agree this is a difficult issue in which I do not have a strong rebuttal. Basically the consequences of getting caught must be greater than the reward of success.
2. Crime will eventually cause chaos and when criminals (with zero productivity) no longer have productive members to take from. They will have to disperse or become productive themselves.
• Non-criminals would eventually band together and create an environment where it is in the best interest of former criminals to become productive rather than criminal in nature.
• Will probably need to increase the ability of civilians to defend themselves.
• Sensitive issue right now.
• In the end though it is more effective and efficient for citizens to defend themselves than employ a massive law enforcement agency.
•  Such agencies are also at high risk for corruption.




4. Not all citizens will give
1. Concern: 

1. Some citizens will choose to hoard their time, talents, and treasures to themselves and not give to the “greater good”. Thus the burden of funding will be unequally distributed on the most generous.
2. Rebuttal
1. Of course this will happen, but I already support a basic level of care with the federal government acting as lender of last resort.
2. Social pressure (see above)
3. People have spoken
• Who made us king over other people’s time, talents, treasures. By holding this view we simply want to be gods over others. This invariably leads to social dysfunction as outlined in my freedom reason post.




5. Innocent will suffer
1. Concern: 
1. In the absence of public assistance, innocent victims who may be dependent upon others for the majority of their care (children, elderly, etc.) will disproportionately suffer.
2. Rebuttal
1. We already have child protection and elder abuse services for similar cases.
2. Giving, as with more impoverished areas, may be directly specifically towards children and elders
3. Private charities could choose to proactively seek out such individuals rather than waiting for them to come to ask for assistance.

I do want to acknowledge I do not believe I have profound insight or intelligence. Private charities may not be able to accomplish many, if any, of the work public assistance programs do. I would however say if public assistance programs are continued they would benefit from being managed by state/local governments rather than the federal government. This would allow citizens to move to those areas where they agree with the level of public assistance provided.

All things considered, I believe the potential advantages of private charities outweigh the potential risks. In addition, with our massive debt, our country may not have a choice but to scale back on public assistance programs. It may be wise to voluntarily transfer to a private charity system rather than haphazardly doing it under financial pressure and a high degree of urgency.

I invite and encourage readers to read Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky and provide comments below or email me additional questions/concerns/thoughts.

Next Post Topic: Food Assistance Part II: Specifics