Saturday, March 10, 2007
Involuntary Compassion
Society. It's you, it's me, it's everyone. And all people have a different perception on how the people in their society behave. Some people say that life is nasty, brutish, and short if we don't surrender ourselves to the leviathan called the government. Others believe that people are generally good, and they will contribute to society if given the chance. I happen to agree with the latter. Generally, people are compassionate.
Every day in life we hear people say. "Oh, the pollution! Oh, the poverty! It must be stopped!"
Have you ever met a single person who likes pollution or poverty? No, people care! They want to see the problems in our society be fixed. But there's one question that must be asked. How? How do we fix these problems?
Well, there's a government solution, and then there's a free market solution. So, which one works? And which one is unnecessary?
It's unequivocally clear that it's the government solution that is unnecessary. Why? Because people don't need to be forced to care. They will choose to care.
Now, I already have a moral problem with the government stealing, ahem, taxing you for services that can be handled by the free market. But instead of philosophy, let's look at this in a pragmatist manner.
Why would one propose the government tax you to help people in bad situations? It's quite simple, really. They think you're a slime ball! They think you don't care about the sick, or the poor! They think you wouldn't donate a cent to save your mother's life! Not to mention they actually think the government is efficient compared to the free market.
This notion is wrong, though. Remember the hurricane Katrina aftermath? While the Statist Liberals were too busy defending Ray Nagin, they missed out on a few important lessons. One, people care. Voluntary donations for hurricane victims were endless. Two, the free market is more efficient than the government. Which was more helpful? FEMA, Nagin, and Bush? Or the Red Cross and Salvation Army?
And it's not like people only give during a national crisis, however. People decide to give every day. You could argue that people aren't giving enough, but why could that be? A lack of compassion? On the contrary, people aren't more charitable because about half of their income is taken by the government in one way or another. Some people can't afford to donate if they're already being forced to.
But if you're not seeing a difference between donation and taxation, then you're forgetting the issue of efficiency. Private organizations have to persuade you to become a customer. The government forces you to be a customer. Because of this, the government doesn't have to compete and is therefore less efficient.
So, why is it unnecessary to enforce this coercive compassion? Because if given the chance, people will choose to be charitable. People care.
Why steal if people are willing to give?
Every day in life we hear people say. "Oh, the pollution! Oh, the poverty! It must be stopped!"
Have you ever met a single person who likes pollution or poverty? No, people care! They want to see the problems in our society be fixed. But there's one question that must be asked. How? How do we fix these problems?
Well, there's a government solution, and then there's a free market solution. So, which one works? And which one is unnecessary?
It's unequivocally clear that it's the government solution that is unnecessary. Why? Because people don't need to be forced to care. They will choose to care.
Now, I already have a moral problem with the government stealing, ahem, taxing you for services that can be handled by the free market. But instead of philosophy, let's look at this in a pragmatist manner.
Why would one propose the government tax you to help people in bad situations? It's quite simple, really. They think you're a slime ball! They think you don't care about the sick, or the poor! They think you wouldn't donate a cent to save your mother's life! Not to mention they actually think the government is efficient compared to the free market.
This notion is wrong, though. Remember the hurricane Katrina aftermath? While the Statist Liberals were too busy defending Ray Nagin, they missed out on a few important lessons. One, people care. Voluntary donations for hurricane victims were endless. Two, the free market is more efficient than the government. Which was more helpful? FEMA, Nagin, and Bush? Or the Red Cross and Salvation Army?
And it's not like people only give during a national crisis, however. People decide to give every day. You could argue that people aren't giving enough, but why could that be? A lack of compassion? On the contrary, people aren't more charitable because about half of their income is taken by the government in one way or another. Some people can't afford to donate if they're already being forced to.
But if you're not seeing a difference between donation and taxation, then you're forgetting the issue of efficiency. Private organizations have to persuade you to become a customer. The government forces you to be a customer. Because of this, the government doesn't have to compete and is therefore less efficient.
So, why is it unnecessary to enforce this coercive compassion? Because if given the chance, people will choose to be charitable. People care.
Why steal if people are willing to give?
Labels: Government/Free Market
