From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 10:13:04 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov12.015128.20902@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov12.002726.24327@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
|> >In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
|> > 
|> >In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to 
|> >take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take 
|> >care of him.) I do think the government should protect 
|> >people from criminal invasions of their rights, and (I suppose,
|> >although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
|> >protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.
|> > 
|> Although I do agree with you, Frank, when it comes to individual rights,
|> I must dissent on your personal isolationism (not that I'm saying you
|> must reject your "I am an island" stand. It's your choice). What I am saying
|> is that we have certain responsibilities to our fellow man, whether we 
|> like it or not. People should take care of themselves if they are capable,
|> even required to, but sometimes you can't (whether it's from hard times,
|> or from prolonged sickness, or whatever).
|> 	[I hope this doesn't sound like I'm lecturing, I'm only trying
|> to make a point]
|> 	What are we, as a society, to do when some people can't make
|> on their own no matter what they try to do? Let them starve? What kind of
|> society is it, that would let someone starve when there is wealth all 
|> around them? 

No, we shouldn't, and most people wouldn't.  We aren't faced with a 
choice of government charity or no charity, there is the very real
alternative of private charity.  Most people are charitible.  Its
one reason why the government functions in part as a charity.  The
biggest problem is that the government is not an effective mechanism
for charity.  It is subject to political whims, is not close to the
problem, and can't adequately handle diverse charitable needs (because
of political pressure).  At the most, government should provide a
backstop for private charitable activities.  Under a completely
private charity system, there is bound to be a free rider problem.
For this reason, I feel it is legitimate for government to provide 
a small level of funds to those in need.  In essence, I agree with
Milton Friedman's position outlined in his book "Capitalism and Freedom",
as well as "Free to Choose".  I believe his negative income tax
proposal as a replacement for all the various welfare programs we
have today would be a vast improvement over what we currently have.
Private organizations should be the primary source for charity, government
should be secondary, not the other way around.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         


Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc