Civil society and voluntary self help

Boyes raises what is a significant illustration of the difference in outcomes from voluntary exchange v. centralized planning. That there will be those less fortunate and in the extreme those unable to maintain themselves is a regretable yet universal in society.

The alternatives for providing assistance to those in need range along the same continue of all exchange - on one hand voluntary self help groups to centralized programs.

Boyes and I both work for the state, but the holiday efforts to coerce "giving" can lead to unfortunate outcomes. Like Boyes I prefer to provide assistance voluntarily to those groups that I view as achieving ends that I support - for example The Foundation for the Teaching of Economics, the Arizona Council for Economic Education, the congregation that my family attends.

This individual, voluntary support had a long history in American culture - deTocqville was struck by the magnitude and generosity of 19th century Americans. Our society inculcates through secular and religious institutions this self help, which continues at a reduced level due to the expansion of the Welfare and Warfare state.

Boyes points out an interesting empirical issue - statists tend to provide less private support to charity than do those who value liberty and freedom. In order to support a civil society the strength of private support for values such as self help and mutual support seems essential. With a commitment to liberty comes a commitment to responsibility and it appears that responsibility is defined and viewed very differently depending upon the perception of the role and significance of the state in charity.

That said, the 20th and 21st century emergence of a welfare state seems to have "crowded out" some private support at the margin.

Russ Roberts elaborates on this point:

Perhaps Americans are less generous than they appear to be. But economics suggests a different explanation. Charitable giving by Americans one hundred years ago was a very different picture. Back then, numerous private charities helped the destitute, the insane, the single mother, and the elderly. Some catered to the poor of specific nationalities or religions. Some provided coal in the winter or work or food or clothes. What has changed?

The simple answer is the role of the federal government in the welfare system. It is commonly believed that before the great depression, the poor, the elderly, and the vagrant had to rely on private alms. That turns out not to be true. The government has been involved in helping the poor in America since colonial times.

But the Great Depression is a key watershed. Before the Great Depression, public aid to the poor typically took place in almshouses or poorhouses, facilities run by the city or county where destitute people could get work and receive food and shelter in return. By all accounts, these were distinctly unpleasant places, perhaps deliberately so, as stigma was believed to be an important deterrent to dependency.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Charity.html

Free markets tend to allow for the emergence of systems of survival. Part of this emergence are private systems of assessment, the one Boyes references is very useful Chairty Navigator - http://www.charitynavigator.org/ which has a mission to:

Charity Navigator, America's premier independent charity evaluator, works to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace by evaluating the financial health of over 5,500 of America's largest charities.


Click over to determine the efficacy of the charity you are voluntarily considering for support v the charity that your employer is attempting to promote.

For fun, I compared the ratings of the Goldwater Institution - http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11101

and, while I was unsuccessfully in a review of Greenpeace, I did look at United Way of Mesa - http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10780