‘Separation of charity and state’
December 27, 2008Oooo, I like the phrase used in this newspaper column about the nature of altruism:
“Altruism is an illusion when it comes to the government,” said Jim Maas of Rothschild, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin. “Americans are a generous people who donate to many worthy causes. … When misfortune or disaster strikes, Americans help out.
“Government is based on force, and force is difficult to reconcile with any meaningful concept of charity. When a government bureaucrat sends money to someone in need, it doesn’t make taxpayers compassionate and caring persons. It also doesn’t mean that the bureaucrat is a good and caring person, because he is doling out the money that the government has forcibly exacted from American taxpayers, not his own. To be meaningful, we must be free to give to those causes which appeal to us. There should be separation of charity and state.”
Now THAT is a great line.
A case can be made that from a policy perspective, that it makes sense for their to be some sort of safety net in place to keep people from starving and losing their homes during normal business cycles. Hungry and homeless people walking the streets isn’t going to be conductive to the free market because it will lead to more demogogury and more socialism, not less.
But when you have politicians using my money to make their constituents happy and beholden, and to create the illusion that the politician “cares,” then I call B.S.
And I feel the same way about calls for mandatory public service as a condition for graduation or some other service. It’s not public service if you have to do it.
Hat tip: IPR.
Tags: altruism, charity, Libertarians