This article originally appeared in the Fayetteville Observer.
What do we do about the poor? The philosophical divide between liberals and conservatives could not have been drawn more starkly than Gov. Mike Easley drew it recently in discussing his office’s 2008-09 budget for North Carolina:
“One of the most important roles of government is to look after and protect the basic human rights of those who cannot stand up for themselves,’’ Easley said. “Without this support, these people would be neglected and would not receive the critical aid they need to help them lead fuller lives and be productive members of our society.’’
Sounds noble. But let’s break down the governor’s words, as there are three very important claims here:
First, Easley says the role of government is to protect basic rights. Just what are those rights? At the time of the American founding, they were “life, liberty and property.” Now, apparently, those “basic” rights extend to government-provided medical care for middle-class children (N.C. Kids’ Care), free preschool (More at Four) and bailouts for people who made poor real estate investments.
Second, Easley claims that the 2-plus million North Carolinians benefiting from his welfare programs do so because they “cannot stand up for themselves.” Now, is it that they cannot stand up for themselves? Or is it that the Department of Health and Human Services has actually helped to create a dependent underclass, which means people receive incentives not to stand on their own at all, but to stand in line at the DSS with an outstretched hand?
Third, Easley claims that without government, the state’s most vulnerable people would be neglected and “not receive the critical aid they need.” That means you, dear reader, would neglect them — unless a more enlightened majority voted against your selfish demons. But is that true? Easley is offering us a low-cost way to vote away our sense of moral responsibility for our neighbors and our communities. That moral sense will then be entrusted to an army of bureaucrats who know better than you what your community needs. But isn’t that just compulsory compassion based on a pessimistic view of mankind?
Commercial growth
On the other side of that stark divide are conservatives. They argue private industry and economic growth can do the most for the economically disadvantaged. There is a continuum between the destitution brought by Soviet socialism and the prosperity brought by free markets, and we should, therefore, move in the direction of economic freedom. Indeed, every dollar of tax collected for this or that “basic right” claimed by Gov. Easley on behalf of the poor would not exist were it not for mutually beneficial exchanges of consenting adults in the marketplace. Commercial activity is the goose that lays those golden eggs. Government growth suffocates that goose.
While I think the latter philosophical interpretation is largely correct, liberals do get one thing right. There are people in the world who’d never be able to survive without assistance from others — no matter how prosperous our society becomes. While we should not believe for a minute that a full quarter of our population should be dependent wards in relatively good economic times, we can all agree that the vulnerable and the poor will always be with us. And this brings us to the question: How might they best be helped?
It is time that we got away from the very comfortable but morally questionable idea that government is the proper instrument for seeing to the needs of the poor. There is more than a little bit of moral obtuseness to the idea that aid must be provided via the coercive apparatus of the state (particularly since we have years of evidence supporting the fact that poverty increases with entitlement programs). Indeed, what sort of person is willing to compromise everyone’s freedom before giving his own resources? Why do the government’s priorities for society’s most vulnerable trump the individual’s? It’s as if they don’t trust people to show compassion.
Another way
But there is a third way: social entrepreneurship. We are at a stage in human development when we’ve tried varying degrees of socialism — systems that have been discredited at each degree. So why can’t we get government out of the poverty business? Why can’t we turn our concern for others to a vibrant philanthropic sector that would be as powerful and prolific as any other industry if we simply took that virtual monopoly away from the state?
What I’m suggesting is not altogether new. Before the New Deal put mutual aid societies and “friendly societies” out of business, America was dotted with community support systems Alexis d’Tocqueville marveled at upon his arrival. Churches, lodges and neighborhoods looked after each other in a time before mega-corporations. In an age of unprecedented wealth, we could see the emergence of a social entrepreneurship sector unlike any ever conceived. That sense of responsibility for our fellow man would return, except we’d have the benefit of 21st century prosperity and know-how.
So as the pendulum between left and right swings back and forth between election days, let me humbly suggest that we stop thinking of the world in terms of dualities such as government welfare and self-reliance. Instead, let’s embrace a third way. Let’s return the government to its rightful place protecting our lives, our liberty and our property. Then we can get together and help those in our communities without making them dependent, or robbing them of the dignity that comes with work and upward mobility.