Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a letter from someone who offered the view that conservatives and libertarians really should prefer a society with a government “safety net” than one where assistance to the needy was entirely voluntary. Today’s paper has a sharp response, which I copy below.
A point I would add is that it’s naive to think you can just have a government “safety net” that will only catch those who cannot help themselves. The existence of government welfare inevitably means that many non-needy will manipulate the system (including businesses, unions, and cause-oriented nonprofits), leading to a constantly expanding state and waste of resources in playing the game of politics.
In his April 5 letter John C. Webb asks, “how many conservatives/libertarians would honestly want to risk relying on a safety net based on the vagaries of private charity rather than one based on a government guarantee?”
I prefer voluntary rather than coerced assistance, personal rather than bureaucratic help, tailored help rather than one-size-fits-all rules, an individual rather than a cog-in-a-wheel approach, earned fruits rather than a free lunch, independence rather than dependence, freedom rather than forced participation, dignity rather than subservience, being deserving rather than entitled and productive rather than parasitic. Further, there are no true government guarantees, including the value of the dollar, Social Security benefits and the treatments Medicare will provide. The less power the government has to “help” me, the more secure is my ability to pursue happiness.
Grant W. Schaumburg Jr.
