Compassion by using Force?

(reprinted from 8/20/03)

I want to address an idea that is widespread in our nation.

The idea is -that it's an act of compassion to favor a
government program intended to help others.

For the most part, humans naturally care about others. Libertarians believe that to be true, or we would not be willing to trust others to do what they want. Americans in particular have demonstrated their charity magnanimously, through good times and tough times, by voluntarily contributing money and volunteer work.

I've written about how much more effective private charities are than government programs; there is quite literally no comparison. Government programs are unbelievably ineffective at getting help to those who need it. Such programs also harm private efforts, by taking resources better spent privately, and by luring those in need away from private charities that could more effectively help them.

Even more importantly, "giving" through government programs is not an act of compassion. It is an act of FORCE, and the unintended consequences of such acts will always result in harm done to others. Even if an act of force helps some, it's destructive results will harm others to a greater extent. Every government welfare program uses tax money. Taxes adversely impact every citizen. Make no mistake... each government welfare program raises taxes enough so that it's certain that it pushes some people over the edge from self-sufficiency into poverty. That is not compassionate ... it's a natural result of the use of force.

An act cannot be considered compassionate unless it is voluntary. If you're a Christian, consider your beliefs... voluntarism is basic to Christian religions. Christians believe in an omnipotent God who could have made acts of charity compulsory, but did not. If force were an appropriate way of solving a problem, wouldn't that be taught as part of Christianity? Force is neither effective nor is it compassionate, yet millions who claim to be religious support forced giving through government programs.

I am often disgusted by the sight and sound of activists pushing for a public program... disgusted because it is obvious what they are really doing. Typically, I see prosperous individuals vocally and pompously promoting a government program to help the "underprivileged". Such people must be bright enough to realize what they're actually pushing for. They must know that government programs don't work well... they must know that they're forcing their will on others, and they must know that the results will not be what they claim to be promoting.

I condemn such people for choosing to ignore the truth. It's not that they don't care, but that they choose to defile their genuine concern with uncaring means. Using the banner of caring compassion, they flaunt their pretense, and pat each other on the backs for their "good works". They praise each other publicly, honor each other, and righteously condemn those who "don't care enough" to support the same programs.

What such people are really doing is trying to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for helping others. By making a public spectacle of promoting institutional programs, they can tell themselves that they're helping, when in fact, most of them want nothing at all to do with the actual people in need... they don't want to deal with the needy on a personal basis.

They deceive, perhaps even themselves, claiming that they are doing more good by promoting programs that will act on a more massive scale than they could achieve on a personal level.

There is no act of compassion that begins to compare with one individual helping another. I believe we all know that.

When we help someone individually, we expect the one we're helping to put forth serious effort toward helping themselves. If they don't, we may justifiably withdraw our help, and perhaps give it instead to someone who will make more of it. To do otherwise is to sacrifice worthy recipients to the unworthy. Government programs don't distinguish, because they are based on need with no control over results.

When we choose to help someone individually, we are able to see and take satisfaction from the positive results of our help, and the recipient can appreciate that you care enough to personally help. That's a great result for both the giver and the recipient... it's life-affirming... it's win-win. Because government programs are force, and bureaucratic, both sides lose, and they are invisible to each other.

Recently, we've seen the inclusion of faith-based programs in government funding. Completely aside from the question of constitutionality, there are two problems with their inclusion:

Again, it's ludicrous for religious programs to ever seek tax money... to use force to achieve their goals.

It's not the basis of faith that makes such programs successful, it's the fact that they're private, usually local, and voluntary. Private organizations that have no religious basis are equally effective.

The idea of a government program that forces us to help others is similar to a war waged to produce peace. Force will always produce more destruction than assistance. If we really care for others, we must stop using force, and return to the only kind of acts that can be compassionate.