But what about welfare you ask

Rick Lowe

A reader of our post yesterday, while sympathetic to the point raised, wondered what happened to those people in society that cannot work or help themselves.

This is a legitimate question, although she was conferring the responsibility to help on the "government". I quickly pointed out that private charity was pushed out by government mandates as noted by Dr. Richard Ebeling in a lecture entitled The Economics of Liberty and The Welfare State, watch it here… and I still think private charity is the best route.

If that doesn't help, read The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society by Michael Tanner.

Here's what sums it up best as far as I'm concerend.  It's from Donald J. Kochan and his 1997 article for The Freeman entitled, The Pervasive Duty to Rescue: Only Private Charity Can Help Those Truly in Need of Assistance.

"…Government programs create dependency, create flawed incentives, and are too broad and generalized to target resources effectively. They hurt more than they help. In tort law, an individual can be held liable for a failed rescue when his heroic attempts are beyond his capacity and actually do harm to the one in need of assistance. The government, however, is not liable for the harm its rescue programs do.

"Only private charity can meet the requirements of those truly in need of assistance. Private funds can be targeted toward those in actual need. Moreover, private organizations are smaller and more localized, allowing them to address the specific problems that needy people have and apply specific solutions, instead of merely sending out impersonal checks drawn against government accounts. Finally, private charities must be more accountable, for they do not have the coercive power of taxation available to ensure continued funding.

"Government programs, unfortunately, have co-opted this superior private approach. Many people believe that they need not get involved because of a flawed perception that the government is doing the job. Moreover, many cannot afford to assist privately, given the drain on their budget from taxation. In tort law, a person can be held liable for preventing a needy individual from getting more effective assistance.[6] That, essentially, is what the government does by its discouragement of private charity, but again, the government is not liable for the harm it does.

"The rules of the common law, developed over many centuries, usually exhibit a profound wisdom in the ordering of human affairs. The rule against compulsory rescues is such a rule. If you were obligated to help everyone in need, the demands on your time and money would be almost endless. The only solution to the problem that protects the individual’s freedom of action and property rights is the one adopted by the common law: there is no legal duty to rescue. There may be a moral duty, but the law leaves that to the individual and his conscience." (Emphasis added).

Using the coercive force of government to "help" the less fortunate only encourages depedency, and I don't think that's what society wants. It is surely not what's best.