Saturday, January 03, 2015

"Voluntary vs Mandatory Charity"

Nicely laid out argument from the Future of Freedom Foundation president who says that mandatory charity makes us all poorer and, as a result, there is less wealth available to help others:

As everyone knows, one of the major differences between statists and libertarians is over the issue of charity. Libertarians believe that charity should be voluntary. Statists believe it should be mandatory.
In analyzing this fundamental difference in perspective, there is one indisputable fact: The more wealth there is in a society, the greater the amount of charity that can be provided to others.
Now, I know what a statist would immediately say: “Jacob, people are just no darned good — well, except for me of course. They have to be forced to give their money to others.”


Anonymous said...

The good thing about voluntary charity is that it comes with strings - there is no free lunch. The dastardly Salvn Army story pre Christmas about the "poor" people that would have a miserable Christmas because the Army wouldn't partner the freeloaders with a benefactor was tempered by the fact that the "poor" people had declined budget assistance. If you want free stuff you need to be accountable to those providing it. The govt doesn't really expect that because its not using its own money.


Anonymous said...

how can charity be 'mandatory'?

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Bastardisation of the word. 'Charity' should be voluntary but, for instance, from very early days in NZ rates were used to fund so-called charitable institutions like hospitals. And rates were mandatory.