“(W)hen we say that the State ought to protect some of them at the expense of others---we think, on the contrary, that all these living powers of society would develop themselves more harmoniously under the influence of liberty…Our adversaries consider that an activity which is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by government, is an activity destroyed. We think just the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.” (That Which Is Seen & That Which Is Not Seen, The Unintended Consequences Of Government Spending, M. Frederic Bastiat; Waking Lion Press, 2006; p 11) (Bastiat wrote these words in the early 1800’s.)
“The government must help the poor…The government must support the arts…The government must take care of the aged…” Or so claim many politicians, liberal and conservative. But is that true?
What would happen if the government did not do these things? Would the poor suffer more? Would the arts shrivel up and die? Would the aged just up and die?
Well, what if these things were true? Oh, wait a minute. They are true, at least in the sense that is exactly what is happening even now with the government helping, supporting, taking care. Are there less poor because of government welfare? Or are, as some are beginning to claim, there MORE poor because of government welfare?
Are the arts flourishing because of government support and aid? Or, as some are starting to claim and seem to have evidence for, are the arts dying because of government support and aid? And it would certainly seem that the freedom of art is dying because when the government supports and aids it also gets to choose what is art and what is not. So, government aid may very well be killing the arts.
Will the aged suffer and die if not taken care by the government? Are Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security (MMSS) beneficial for the aged? Or by MMSS is the government causing more suffering and uncertainty for the aged? And MMSS have become so fragile that it seems the aged cannot depend on them for anything, which causes even more stress for the aged. Those who are now aged have paid into these programs for their life and now there seems to be nothing there for these aged when they need the help. Would it have been better to let the private sector create tools that would benefit the aged when they needed it?
But, some would say, that the private sector is so greedy and has no foresight to plan and has no concern for others. Even IF that were the case, why would we think the government has less of these characteristics? As Bastiat states: So you put your “faith…in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.” We so often forget: the legislator is part of mankind. Why would we think them any less greedy with more foresight or concern for others?
But, some would say, the legislators are the cream of the crop; they are the best of mankind. But, does that make them less greedy, etc.? Are they the parents and we the children that need instruction and guidance? I think the scandals that seem to erupt with every increasing frequency would lead us to think otherwise. Of course, we can cling to this belief in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
And so Bastiat writes: “Government ought not to take part in this correspondence, because in a certain condition of present fortune it could not by taxation stimulate the arts of necessity without checking those of luxury, and thus interrupting the natural course of civilization.” (ibid, p 10) And so it would seem that by striving to aid the arts by taxation, the government is hindering the life of luxury that would by nature support the arts. And in the middle the government lowers the aid the arts could get by having to remove some of the funds for its own expenses to support the ones who are doing the work of the government. And it would seem from the scandals of late, removing a rather large percentage of what is collected for the arts or any other good cause. So MMSS is in deep trouble financially, the arts have run off a cliff, the poor are getting poorer and the aged are flailing around in death throes in spite of our wonderful government aid.
Now, to preempt any accusation of hard-heartedness, this does not mean that these causes are bad or destructive or whatever. The only question that is being addressed is: Is government aid the best way to address these needs? Or does government interference cause more problems than it tries to solve?
Katrina is a good example. Just how helpful was the government? There is evidence that private benevolence was more helpful than any government. People who received help from private volunteers had their houses rebuilt before the government even began. And what could private volunteers have accomplished if they would have had the funds the government had forcibly taken from them? Ah, the free enterprise system is much more effective and efficient than any government.
No comments:
Post a Comment