I believe in charity. I believe that helping those who truly cannot help themselves benefits everyone involved, donor and recipient.
I do not, however, believe in legally mandated charity, and for many reasons.
For one thing, it’s too easy. Ideally, real charity should involve face-to-face contact between donor and recipient. Each person involved in the transaction should be able to get a good look at the other, to see the need and the compassion, and to see the effect the exchange has on the other. Alternatively, a private and volunteer organization whose judgment and screening process we trust can distribute our donations to good effect.
But when our donations are wrested from us by law and redistributed without our input, it becomes way too easy to believe we’ve done our share with no cost to us except money.
My main objection to coerced charity, however, is that when I choose to (or am forced to) donate money or food or clothing to someone in need, I have the right, even the responsibility, to check and see whether the recipient is a scam artist. I want to have a say in who receives my charitable donations. I want to be able to question the people who are divvying up the money I give. I want to find out what the criteria are for receiving help. I want to be sure that the recipients of my dollars are, first of all, making the best use of their own resources before they ask for mine. I want to know if they’re working at all, and just need some help at the end of the month, or refusing to work. Or maybe unable to work. I want to be able to withhold my contributions from any agency that seems careless or overly lax in doling out my gifts, and give it instead to another group whose policies I agree with.
Do I have the right to that information? Darn tootin’ I do.
I know someone who is really struggling right now. There is illness in her family, minimal support from other family members, not enough money, confrontations with insurance providers, more than one job (which leaves even less time for the other obligations), and her own health is not the best.
I mentioned to a mutual friend that maybe some of us could help her out. There are a number of things we could do, but money seems to be the overwhelming lack, and many of the other problems could be eased with just a little more cash.
The mutual friend spent several minutes telling me why that wouldn’t be a good idea. She had a lot of information that I didn’t know about – wasted opportunities, unnecessary alienation of other family members, wasted resources, lack of understanding of basic information about social services, and a host of other stories that made it pretty clear that the person I wanted to help had brought a lot of her troubles on herself. It was new information for me, and my mind’s (and heart’s) jury is still out on the subject.
And that brings us to what I found so astonishing about the conversation I had with the mutual friend: The person who chose not to help a close acquaintance because she knew that the person in need was not making good decisions and could therefore do more to help herself — this same person predictably and consistently advocates legislation to raise taxes to increase social programs to funnel money to virtually anyone who asks for help.
And I’m pretty sure our needy friend would qualify for those same social programs if she applied.
My liberal friend is willing to pay higher taxes to fund government programs that take away from her the right to direct her charitable contributions, yet insists on exercising that right when presented with the opportunity to help someone close.
I, on the other hand, am willing to help a friend who would probably not be entitled to help from the more stringent private charitable organizations I advocate.
Does all this mean anything?
Honestly, I don’t know.
KsSmallBiz.com, March 14, 2007
Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »