An often cited reason given for the need for the state is that it is the only means through which the poor can access sufficient welfare to relieve them from the harsh realities that can accompany their circumstances.
Despite the promises made over many decades and the huge sums spent on state welfare programs, it is hardly clear that the needs of the poor have been sufficiently met, especially given the constant outcry for more resources and better programs.
In spite of the existence of such state redistribution, people even more convincingly show their belief in the need for welfare when they voluntarily donate their own wealth to the poor via private charity.
Under a state there is typically a category of people who end up as welfare recipients that need not have been had they not had a portion of their wealth confiscated by the state in the first place.
Needless to say, this category of people would now be left alone and not end up needing welfare to the same extent, thus reducing the total demand for welfare once the state is removed.
A state redistribution system in contrast is funded by the forced confiscation of wealth, so despite abuses it can continue to exist for as long as the state remains in power.
The above exploration of the changes we could expect as the state is removed from the scene gives us reasons to expect that more wealth will be generated, some of this increased wealth will end up in the hands of people who otherwise would have been welfare recipients, a greater propensity to give to private charity will exist, a greater incentive to avoid being in need of welfare will exist, welfare via private charity will involve less corruption and misallocation of funds, and welfare via private charity will likely be qualitatively superior to state redistribution as a means for helping the poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment