Jack: Try Again

Hi Greg--

You are correct that some people, not all of them conservatives, have at times stereotyped the poor based on the derelict behavior of a few.  However, we could point out that some relief programs, by their very structure, do encourage that kind of dereliction.  But that's not where my arguments have centered.  If you lump me in with these anonymous "conservatives" who do this stereotyping, doesn't that open you also up to the charge of stereotyping us conservatives based on the careless comments of a few?

Could you indulge me by re-reading my last note to you, attached below--where I listed your questions (and got your approval of the list) and then dealt with each one? I think that I gave a good explanation about why "government programs aimed at poverty alleviation actually make matters worse."  I didn't dwell on the reduction of incentives--though it's a reality--nor did I suggest that the poor are just chiselers, nursing on the public breast.  I emphasized--go read it and see--that the problem is that when the government funds these programs, it diverts--by force--resources that otherwise could be used to address poverty by private means.  And I think history shows that the private means would address poverty more efficiently and effectively. (and permanently!)

You actually supported that latter point (without acknowledging it) in your description of the fine things you've done to help set up programs to help the poor.  With (I presume) very limited resources, you managed to buy clothes for a job interviewee; advocate for a library branch and public transit systems (neither of which is a government anti-poverty program); spread the word about job openings; help maintain a food pantry; help set up (or was it your co-worker?) a program to educate poor people on how to dress and act in applying for and getting a job; and distribute a list of employers willing to hire felons.  

Greg, consider how modest was the dollar investment in your efforts, even including a portion of whatever salary you were drawing.  Then imagine how little a government agency would accomplish, pursuing those same goals, if limited to such a small amount of money to spend.  The government agency would require a far larger budget; and I suspect would do a much poorer job of establishing one-on-one relationships with the people being helped.  By having you do it, fewer resources were diverted from other good things.  It wasn't free; but it was very efficient.  When government does things, it is also not free; but it is less efficient.  Now imagine a world in which the government ceased to tax or borrow resources out of the economy for poverty programs, so that taxpayers had more left over to fund the efforts of people like you.  

Of course, then people could pick and choose which charitable efforts to fund; and one that starts looking wasteful gets cut off almost immediately in favor of others that the donors are more satisfied with.  None of this can happen easily with a government program.  They turn into embedded fiefdoms, using their shortfalls of performance to justify more funding--the very opposite of the fate of private charities (and businesses) when they perform poorly.

Again, I'd appreciate your reviewing what I wrote last time; I think some of your comments really may have been directed toward another correspondent.  I offered numerous points, with some thought, that I thought you would appreciate.  And I'll look forward to your differentiating between taxation and theft. (I'm not saying you can't do it; I'm just interested in how you will do it.)

Jack