General or Specific Welfare? H. Cundari

HANNIBAL CUNDARI WHAT WOULD this country be like in 1971 had government, in 1787, been instituted to "promote the general welfare" as interpreted by today's misguided humanitarians? Suppose the government had at that time disregarded the promo tion of economic freedom as the real meaning and intent of the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution! We need only to con sider the increase of our national debt in the past thirty years and the hordes of individuals and agencies that qualify under pres ent government standards as be ing in poverty to realize that this nation would long since have per ished had such views prevailed from its beginning. Aware that such a fate inevit ably stalks an unlimited governMr. Cundari is a me<:hanical engineer. He also serves as Bergen County Chairman of the New Jersey Conservative Union. 754 ment - one having power to direct the daily actions of individuals our Founding Fathers declared in the Constitution that "We, the people . . . will promote the gen eral welfare." Nowhere does it state that government shall pro mote personal welfare or provide it. Yet, misguided individuals mis interpret the "promote the gen eral welfare" cIause as a license to provide welfare.

Having suffered from the abuses and usurpations by coercive gov ernment, the framers of our Con stitution could never have empow ered any government to provide welfare to specific individuals. The encouragement of individ ual freedom was the principal ob jective set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution, and it cannot be doubted that individual free dom is preferred by all people to 1971 GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WELFARE? 755 enslavement. Whatever promotes individual freedom also promotes the general welfare. By the same token, one who toils to add ma terial goods to society by his pro ductive efforts also promotes the general welfare. Yet, when he is penalized through confiscation of his rewards for productive toil, to that extent he becomes a slave, losing his individual freedom. Fur thermore, his contribution to the general welfare is diminished by the a1p.ount government confiscates from him. In such cases, govern ment works to the detriment of the general welfare by its very ef forts to provide specific welfare.

Impartial Justice The Constitution contains no reference to specific welfare for individuals by government. The clause refers to the general pro tection offered by government as a referee in dispensing justice im partially; to promote tranquillity and to ensure that one does not encroach upon the private prop erty of others; to guarantee that one party is not favored over an other and that no one receives special .privileges. Justice is not served when government allocates to the so-called poor the resources and property of others; to thus legalize inj ustice simply serves as warning that confiscation and re distribution of one's possessioas is the fate to be expected when one endeavors to promote his own and thus the general welfare. Shall one praise our govern ment today, for instance, for its so-called promotion of the general welfare through the process of in flation? Or do these inflationary welfare measures simply place ex tra and unwarranted stumbling blocks in the path to personal free dom and economic well-being?

How often have "public benefac tors" caused the very problems and distortions their policies were supposed to cure! Witness the shortage of housing since the con trolling government agency in fused billions of dollars into the economy to "alleviate" housing shortages. Witness the increase in unemployment for those who are classed as underprivileged and who were to become the benefici aries of the minimum wage law the law which denied those most in need of employment the oppor tunity to compete and work for lower than "minimum" wages. Witness the shortage of rental housing where rent control laws drove investors out of the "land lord" business and thereby aggra vated the conditions in slum areas. Nevertheless, such detrimental leg islation remains on the books, and bureaucracy continues to wield its deadly hand against the general welfare.

756 THE FREEMAN December How is the general welfare to be promoted by government-im posed price-wage controls, import duties, restrictions on foreign in vestments, and scores of restraints upon the economic freedom of in dividuals to determine their own actions? Just how is an additional 10 per cent tariff against imports supposed to promote the welfare or increase the buying power of American citizens? Regardless of rationalizations, such governmen tal interferences with the free market most surely result in the impoverishment of many individ uals. The spirit of the general wel fare clause was to limit the gov ernment to actions of a general nature, applicable to everyone rather than to privileged individ uals or selective classes of people. It· was an insurance against the use of the coercive force of govNo Federal Aid ernment to fracture freedom. If it had been the intent of the Con stitutional framers, would not wel fare programs have proliferated then as they do today? But gov ernment-provided welfare was nonexistent in those days! Does this not lend proof that those who framed the clause had no such desire for the government to pro vide for the needs or wants of privileged individuals or groups?

Abdication of our rights to life, liberty, and property is the price we pay for liberalizing our limi tation of government, for relaxing our eternal vigilance. The spoilers could not have perverted the wel fare clause while those who framed it were still alive. They had to wait until a later generation had come to take freedom for granted. Now, it remains for the living to learn anew how to promote the general welfare. ~ iDEAS ON L$ LiBERTY THE 'FRIENDLINESSand charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of t:p.at kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

GROVER CLEVELAND, Veto message, February 16, 1887 ARE V lEW E R'S NOT EB 00 K JOHN CHAMBERLAIN Then Truth 'Will Out LEONARD READ has a phrase for the man who, while extolling free enterprise in general, makes one or two - or three or four - excep tions to the rule of freedom. Such a man, says Leonard, "leaks." There are all sorts of gradations in this business of "leaking," from the libertarian who makes excuses for government-subsidized theater or dance to the industrialist who is willing to compete at home pro vided he has a tariff wall to pro tect himself against the foreigner. As might be expected, Mr. Read's Then Truth Will Out (Foundation for Economic Edu cation, $3.00 cloth, $2.00 paper) is the work of a practically leak proof man. I consider myself a stalwart devotee of the "freedom philosophy," but in this book Leonard Read has compelled me to check my sights in a couple of matters. There is this business of the "voucher system" for educa tion, for example.