Free Giving vs. The Welfare State; C. La Dow

CHARLES R. LA Dow DESPITE the ever-burgeoning tax burden of our welfare state, vol untary giving by the American people goes on apace, as the num ber of philanthropic appeals stead ily increases. Without recourse to statistics, the average person's daily mail, plus reiterations in the media, assure him of the persist ent success of privately supported causes. Furthermore, the buildings and equipment of privately funded philanthropic institutions are vis ual proof of their vitality. Tax de ductibility only partially eases the cost of giving, a cost assumed by persons of every class. The maj or motive for giving is clear; in this private sector, the individual is allowed to give to causes which he truly wants to support. Also, he is assured of the effectiveness of his donations by the knowledge that Mr. La Dow, of San Diego, recently retired as a teacher of social studies in high school.

he can withdraw support whenever he believes an organization is no longer worthy and the certainty that such organizations are aware of his option. The "public philanthropy" of the welfare state possesses no such motivation and no such safeguard. Based, of necessity, on class legis lation, it appeals to the greed of the individ ua.!, as a member of some arbitrary, abstract group. (Private philanthropy would be in the same condition if its benefici aries were empowered to vote upon, and lobby for, the nature and amounts of their benefits. Who would contribute to such institu tions?) Since all classes of citi zens, directly and indirectly, are now dependent on public largesse, it is understandable that each in dividual is motivated to vote so that his class, hence himself, will get the largest possible share of 109 110 THE FREEMAN February , public funds. (The person is rare, indeed, who asks for a cut in wages or benefits!) Hence, we are faced with the odd spectacle of a million aire allowing Medicare to pay for his operation, while a recipient of relief goes to the doctor every time he has a sore thumb. People of ev ery class and political persuasion are aware of the shortcomings of governmental welfare programs; but the very nature of the process impels them to demand more of the same. There is also the haunt ing, long-held, fear that, if we should scrap these programs and turn to a free market, we would have a ghastly depression.

Reality suggests otherwise. Should we continue as we are do ing, a terrible awakening is certain to come. The truism of economics is inescapable: "Wants are un limited, while resources are in lim ited supply." We haye been squan dering our resources for decades, having attempted to repeal the law of supply and demand and the natural restraints it imposes. The continuing vitality of Hong Kong, surrounded by totalitarianism; the astounding recovery of war-dev astated Germany and Japan; these are examples of the effectiveness of open competition. Our welfare state is even threatened, econom ically and militarily, by the totali tarian powers. We must awaken from our long holiday. Are the American people too effete to an swer a challenge of "blood, sweat, toil, and tears?" Their record of voluntary giving and ability to rise quickly to real emergency in dicates otherwise. No Lack of Philanthropy As to any fear that dismantling of the welfare state would dry up philanthropy in this nation and see people dying for lack of food or medical care, one need only read the daily paper to see the im probability of such happenings.

Even with the load of tax-support ed welfare, the people's response to ,individual troubles is amazing. Appeals for help for the unfor tunate are usually oversubscribed; nor is such help given, or taken, in a demeaning way. As always, it is public welfare, not private char ity, which is truly demeaning. Generosity and gratitude are beautiful emotions which draw persons together as no public larg esse can do. Think of the good which could be done voluntarily if the funds extracted for public wel fare measures were left in the hands of individuals! The foregoing suggestion may not justly be called Brahministic or devoid of concern for the com mon man. The tax load of the wel fare state falls most heavily on the common man, who is in no posi tion to claim capital losses or tax 1972 FREE GIVING VS. THE WELFARE STATE 111 shelters, or to pass along his tax costs in the form of higher prices.

The easy road to great fortunes and the tax-free status of many of our wealthiest persons are hall marks of the welfare state. At the other extreme, the poor man, spending most of his income for necessities, is locked into the cruel bind of tax and inflation. Who pays for the government's farm programs? The only honest reply: "The poor people in the cities." On the other hand, farmers are im poverished by rising costs of ma chinery and supplies due to gov ernment pampering of organized labor, plus the exorbitant taxes and interest which stem from the profligate policies of a welfare state. The true charge of Brahm inism fits best those welfare poli cies which are designed to fasten the individual to a place in an ar bitrary caste system of "benefits" while taxing away his chances of social mobility. Failure of the current adminis tration to even begin to dismantle the bureaucracy as promised indi cates a need for major surgery.

When government officials, in so many cases, seem no more aware of fundamental economic law than are their constituents, it is diffi cult to see how correction can come. It usually takes a great shock to shake a nation. into a grand decision. The blitz-bombing did it to England. Catastrophic de feat . accomplished it in West Germany and Japan. Such feats, as in England, are often ephem eral. The magic of Germany and Japan may well end in reaction. However, the debacle of 1929, which introduced our welfare state and started a movement continu ing to this day, is some proof of our persistence, however perverse. Nevertheless, a steady growth of conservative opposition, both in quantity and quality, has been ap parent. Those who are rebuffed are obliged to pursue education and improve their talents, while those in power grow slack. It may well be that when the next shock comes, as it surely must, voters will be ready to listen to the call to turn philanthropy back to the people. ~ IDEAS ON trlh\ W~D.

LIBERTY William Feather WHICH TOWN is better off, one which organizes a new uplift movement every three months, or one which opens a new factory? The William Feather Magazine, December 1971 CLARENCE B. CARSON THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 7 The First American Crisis: 1763-66 112 IT MAY WELL BE that the pivotal event for the onset of American resistance was the coming to the throne of the United Kingdom in 1760, of George III. He was the third of the Hanoverian monarchs of England, the grandson of George II who immediately pre ceded him, and the great grand son of George I. He was the first of this line of British rulers to be native-born, a fact he thought worth emphasizing. When George III came to the throne, he was in the first blush of manhood, and this promising young man should have been a welcome relief from the rule of his grandfather, who had no high regard for his own abilities. Indeed, the powers of the monarch had declined greatly in the unsure hands of both George I and George II . It was commonly said that ministers were kings during this earlier period, and there can be no doubt that the Whigs had dominated so long that the government was run by factions within a party rather than by political parties.