Entry by Josh--Welfare

Josh and I have talked a lot about the welfare setup in this country and I've found that on just about any given topic he articulates himself much better than myself, and we happen to agree wholeheartedly on this issue so I asked him to weigh in. I'm sure he won't like that I'm making his comment into a post, but I want it to be in my journal when I print this baby off, sorry Josh:).

*****

Afton asked me to share a couple of thoughts on this topic. I don't intend to spark debate, but to foster reflection and discussion:

1) The chief problem I see with state-run welfare is the spiritual/emotional toll it imposes on those who cannot or do not resist abuse of the system. Speaking as someone who only recently became a bread-winner, my sense of self-worth would be eviscerated in short order were I ever forced to accept a handout (I don't claim to have the character of the title role in Cinderella Man, but I certainly relate to his distaste for the dole).I consider easy, no-conditions state welfare to be a tragic temptation--the more pernicious because it is presented to those who likely have the least capacity to resist it.

2) I applaud those who, like you, Arlynda, are happy to support those less fortunate with a portion of your hard-earned money. Americans in general are exceptionally generous, as they should be, and I hope that never changes (http://nigeria.usembassy.gov/pr_06272007.html). For the religious among us, financial charity for the disadvantaged was a commandment repeatedly emphasized by the Savior, after all. That being said, I see no moral mandate for state-run welfare. In the first place, the government will likely not agree with me regarding how those scarce assets should be allocated, so I would prefer to have some say in how that money is spent. Second, government bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient and abusive, so the resources allocated will not go as far in the government's hands. Thirdly, I simply object to compelled generosity.

That last point requires a little explanation. Under a bloated, well-funded government, it is easy to forget that when someone's need is satisfied by the government's coffers, it is actually coming from the pocket of the recipient's neighbor. For the sake of clarity, imagine mandatory welfare in a society without currency, advanced technology or government bureaucracy. If Joe cannot provide for his family, someone must help him make ends meet. His neighbor, Jack, might choose to spend a few extra hours hunting in order to find food for Joe's family as well, and that would be natural, well and good. Would it be good, however, to compel Jack to do so? Even if Jack is healthy and able to provide for Joe's needs, compelling Jack to work amounts to forced servitude. Does Joe's need trump Jack's freedom? If so, does the answer change if Joe's need is partially self-imposed?

(We don't think twice about paying our taxes, of course, but the fact that welfare money goes through the intermediary of the state does not alter the fact that welfare results in forced labor. Salaries make this more difficult to appreciate, since most of us cannot choose to work a few extra hours for a little extra pay, but in the end, you are paid for your time, so when someone takes your money, they take the time you spent to earn it.)

Again, for the Christians in the group, I do not believe compulsory alms are called for by the scriptures. I agree that not enough of us are living up to the mandate to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, but I don't believe Christ had a welfare state in mind when he commanded his followers to care for their neighbors. Moreover, agency is the defining feature of the Plan of Salvation, and restrictions on that agency should be weighed carefully, especially if they prevent people from choosing to do good independently.

Finally, while I would never intend to diminish the reality and the horror of desperate need (let alone imply that we should not do everything we can to alleviate it), in the end of ends, we will discover that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. In other words, if a particular form of welfare alleviates some temporal suffering but wreaks even minimal spiritual damage, I'm not sure the beneficiaries of the temporal assistance will ultimately be glad they received it.

3) One last point: it seems that today, not many people fundamentally disagree with the concept of state welfare--to be honest, I'm not sure whether or not I do completely, despite the foregoing. But those of us who at least take issue with state-run welfare are not all heartless money-grubbers. Rather, we are optimistic that a more responsible and responsive system of welfare is possible, and would willingly give more than the government is currently taking to institutions in which we have more confidence. Families, friends, communities and foundations can and should be alternatives to a mandatory tax-and-spend government welfare state.(I highly recommend Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to anyone looking for a rigorous defense of capitalism and a philosophical look at entitlements)

***
Compliments of Melanie Curtis, here is a link to a talk by Elder Romney that says some of what I was feebly attempting to say above.