No, I won’t see Michael Moore’s newest movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story” but not for the reason one would think…that is, assuming one cared enough to think about the movies I see, which I doubt one does. Heck, I almost don’t, and I’m me. But, since this is a blog, and I’m the publisher, this beginning seems appropriate.

One might think the obvious: “Because, Burg; you are an unabashed Capitalist who would be truly offended watching someone like Moore bash the economic system you so love.”

Well, I probably would be offended, but that’s not the reason I won’t go. Actually, since I enjoy learning from everyone, including those with opposing viewpoints, I would have gone just to see exactly how he would have made his case against Capitalism; the one economic system in the history of the world that has improved the standard of living for everyone (yes, everyone, including the poor) under its umbrella. 

But, that’s not what he’s doing. I have seen him interviewed about the movie, and I saw a movie clip. Both times there was something very obvious:

He was not talking about Capitalism!!

That’s right. He was displaying disgust at the obvious collusion between our 535 legislators and the corporations and special interests (represented by lobbyists) to which they’ve sold their law-making influence.

And, I’m just as disgusted by that as Moore is. However, that is not Capitalism…it is Corporatism (i.e., “corporate welfare” or special laws, rules and regulations intended to benefit those footing the bill).

Yes, it’s bad. It’s very bad. But, again, it’s not Capitalism.

Yet, the movie claims to display the evils of Capitalism. And Michael Moore has millions of followers who – when he says something is…something – they accept it.

Here’s my very quick open letter to Michael Moore. And, while he’ll probably never see it, I’ll feel a lot better for having written it:

Dear Mr. Moore, please understand that government colluding with and rewarding special interests who contribute to their re-election campaigns is NOT Capitalism. With all respect, your entire premise is false. Unfortunately, most of America is going to accept your conclusion without even questioning the very false premise upon which it was based. You have a right to your opinion. But, when you have as much influence as you have, you also have a responsibility to understand what is and what isn’t, and to get your premises straight. Remember, by the very nature of having a false premise you can not reach a correct conclusion. Please check your premises.

MainBob O’Connor wrote: “Perhaps the movie should be called ‘Corporatism: A Love Story.’ There is a corruption of power going on with companies lobbying for ‘company welfare’ and handouts from the government to Banks and big companies.”

I agree with MaineBob. Any chance, Mr. Moore, that you’ll change the title or at least admit your mistake? Or is there more money to be made by using a sexy – albeit false – title?

Of course, Mr. Moore, maybe you’d call that Capitalism.

I don’t call it that. I call it fibbing.

Well, it’s coming down to the wire; the Obama Administration is perhaps just weeks away from enacting legislation that will put our loved ones’ health in the hands of a colossal government bureaucracy comprised of nameless/faceless administrators, drive up job-killing taxes through massive spending, create huge waiting lists for life-saving procedures, cause a shortage of doctors, significantly harm the middle class and poor, elicit health-care rationing as we’ve never before experienced, and, in the end, bring us an inferior level of healthcare.

All of these are certain to be true…and presenting our case like this is exactly the WRONG way to win the hearts and minds of those we are trying to persuade.

Instead, we must communicate the issue at the very heart of this matter and which – as far as I can tell – no one; including any of the usual “Pro-Economic Liberty” pundits, are explaining.

In fact, the Pro-Universal Crowd has done a brilliant job of framing a false argument:

“Do we stick with a Free-Market Healthcare system which is not working?”

or…

“Do we at least do something to try and help; for example, go to a system of Universal Healthcare?”

And (anti-Constitutionality aside), that question would make sense, except…

WE DON’T CURRENTLY HAVE A FREE-MARKET BASED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. (Sorry for shouting but has nobody noticed that??!!)

Actually, we haven’t had a market-based healthcare system in over 50 years. When we did, it worked magnificently well for everyone, including the financially disadvantaged. Only after government first inched its way in and then eventually controlled nearly every aspect of it did we find ourselves in the predicament we are currently in, with the masses now asking the government to solve the very problem they created (I can’t think of anything more nonsensical).

While I explain all this in my five-part series, Check Your Healthcare Premises, it hardly matters if we don’t effectively communicate this faulty premise to those who advocate Socialized (i.e. Socialistic) Healthcare.  

We must “control the frame” and re-direct the argument from a choice between a current “free-market” system (which it is not) that doesn’t work (and it doesn’t) and a socialized system of healthcare that will be absolutely disastrous…and offer a third choice; indeed, the only choice that can work, and – even better – has proven to work; a healthcare system based on the free market.

The next time someone presents the argument as the false choice of two, simply tell them (with no defensiveness): “We don’t have a free market healthcare system.”

They will say, “Of course we do; how can you say that we don’t?”

You respond: “There are 133,000 pages of health care regulation in the U.S. Federal Register. Please tell me why you would consider that to be free market.”

You have just reframed the debate. Now, he/she must explain why today’s system IS market-based instead of you explaining that our current government-controlled system works just fine (which it doesn’t, and everyone knows it doesn’t and it doesn’t do anyone any good when anyone tries to say differently).

They might, in desperation, say, “but something has to change.”

You respond: “Absolutely healthcare needs to change. Wouldn’t you agree that the right change is to the system that worked before; the free market? After all, you are genuinely concerned that people who truly need medical care get it, aren’t you?”

Again, you’ve reframed this to highlight the benevolence of the free market rather than an “I don’t care about others” attitude that they wrongly believe.

Important: Once the person recognizes (or, your reader or listener understands) that the free market is not to blame for our current healthcare woes, you can offer a third alternative; that we get government OUT of our healthcare system and go back to the excellent system we once had (either read my five-part series or utilize information you already know that provides the benefits of a free-market healthcare system).

The key is that – once you set the correct premise and offer the third alternative, you must remain totally disciplined to not get “sucked into” arguing their false dilemma and continue to bring it back to the correct premise.

If we can do this consistently, and teach our fellow lovers of liberty how to do the same, then not only will we not be saddled with a socialized system of healthcare that we’ll never be able to reverse, but we’ll provide everyone; including the children, the elderly and the financially disadvantaged with the benefits of the one healthcare system that truly works…the free market.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.) Or click here to read Part 1 of the Health Care series.

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 5)

I had planned to end the series on Health Care after Part 4 but felt compelled to add the following because it’s so important an issue that I believe if there’s one more point; one more example  that will help educate us all to realize that the path to Socialized Medicine is contrary to both our individual and national health, then it needs to be made.  And, the following might or might not be it.

Health care is simply a microcosm of everything else and operates under the same basic principles, both economic and life.

As a general rule, with government programs, the following statement holds true: “The product is worse, the expense is higher, inefficiency is the rule, and everything is typically ‘up for sale’ to the highest special interest bidder via their lobbyists.” This has proven true with medicine so far as it has become more and more socialized in the U.S., and will most likely only accelerate should we actually get Universal Healthcare in our country.

The above rule also conforms with the immutable law of economics that says, “Nobody spends someone else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.

One of the most poignant stories I’ve ever read, heard, or (in this case) seen about  the inherent danger of Single-Pay insurance programs was on the online service YouTube.com from a filmaker/political commentator by the name of Stuart Browning. He has – in my opinion – simply “hit the nail on the head” regarding this topic. It’s  5:37 in length and worth every second to watch.

In this video, entitled, “A Short Course in Brain Surgery” he tells the not uncommon-enough story of a Canadian citizen who, despite being totally covered by Canadian’s provincial government for all medical procedures, couldn’t get an appointment to see what’s wrong with him…in this case, even though it was suspected that he had a brain tumor! It would be four months before he could get an MRI!!!!!

Well, brain tumors don’t necessarily wait that long to be diagnosed before they kill, so Mr. McCreith, a retiree on a limited budget, and his wife, Sandra, decided they would rather pay out of their own pocket and get it taken care of. The government said no. (The government said no. Think about that; a body of politicians and bureaucrats actually have the “right” to hold the fate of one of their citizens in their hands – which is bad enough – but they also told him, “no”).

The McCreiths eventually went south of the border to the U.S. where, fortunately, we have not yet (yet) sunk to Socialized Health Care (yet, please make no mistake – we are very far from our once excellent free-market based system).  He was able to get the MRI. It was indeed a brain tumor. He had it operated on, again in the U.S.

He was also out $28,000. (Remember, he also pays lots of taxes to the Canadian Government so he certainly expected services for his payments.) But he had no choice because, unless he headed south, he wasn’t going to get checked out – and then operated – in time to save his life.

You see, in Canada (as in every country that has Socialized Medicine), while everyone supposedly has a right to “free” healthcare coverage, what they really have is a right to join a waiting list.

Please note – this is so important: Basic economics tells us that when something is free or of a price that’s so low it is well under market value, it will create a demand; A demand that typically cannot be covered. The only way to decrease demand would be to raise prices but – with Universal Health Care – where the government is the only legal provider – that can’t be done.

So, the average citizen simply has to leave his or her health (thus, their very fate) up to the system; a system run by bureaucrats without a vested interest in making sure the individual is happy. After all, in a “socialistic” system, by its very nature, the individual is not as important as the collective.

This system has caused a backlog in Canadian healthcare that has been nearly catastrophic, such as  was nearly the case with Mr. Lindsay McCreith, This should not happen in a country as great and civilized as Canada, nor should it happen anywhere else. Let’s not allow this to happen in the U.S.

—–

*Before any of my many Canadian friends email me that I’m picking on Canada, please know that, personally, I love Canada, enjoy visiting on business and constantly brag to my American friends how wonderfully hospitable you all are (and how delicious Tim Horton’s coffee is). :-) I’m also not trying to tell you how to run your country. I would never do that. I’m only pointing out something I feel very strongly about in that I don’t want my beloved country, The U.S.A., going the Single-Payer route as you have north of the border.

And, if you do write, please don’t point out how inefficient our “free-market” healthcare system is. Before you do that, please read the previous four parts of this series and see that I clearly make the case that we have not had a free-market health-care system here in the U.S. for over 50 years.

Socialism is never the answer. Liberty is the answer.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 4)

Over the first three parts of this series, we’ve seen that:

• 1. Our once magnificent healthcare system is broken.
• 2. Government is the one that broke it (and, amazingly enough, is being asked by the multitude to fix it).
• 3. Universal Health Care is much costlier and results in many people not getting the important care they need, when they need it. It also, in many instances, denies the individual the all-important right to make the choices and decisions they feel are in the best interests of themselves and their loved ones; instead putting those decisions into the hands of a bureaucrat. 

The problem is, although Universal Health Care is not nearly as effective as a Free-Market system, we need to go back to point number one and agree that our present system is broken and change is needed. Then we need to be extremely clear about something. As mentioned in the first article of this “series within a series”…

The current U.S. Healthcare System is NOT Market-Based!

Fortunately, the solution is actually quite simple. Get the government out of our healthcare system and let the free marketplace, private charity and loving-kindness do what it once did; provide us with a healthcare system that really works.

A couple of goodies include the fact that with a free-market health care system, prices for health care would be much, much lower than they are now. So more people could naturally afford adequate health care. The government has messed up the natural market (including supply and demand) so badly that costs have rises sky high.

So, first, lower prices solves a lot of problems. Then, it’s taking away government’s power to give the insurance companies control over the drug marketplace. Again, with alternative medicines able to do their work, the drug companies would have to come way down on prices. Then, with decreases in needless regulations, there would be more doctors and other health practitioners, creating competition and lower prices, with service much better than it is now. And, for those relative few percentage-wise who still can’t afford it, sliding scales and charities would cover the rest (as it used to, and quite well).

Yes, it sounds simple . . . because it is! Get government OUT of healthcare in every way but the protection of force and fraud (their two legitimate functions when it comes to business) and then just watch what happens. Our health care system will once again be the envy of the world and – more importantly – it will again work for all of us, including the children the elderly and the less fortunate.

Please, please don’t buy into this government and politically-based nonsense of Universal Healthcare. And, don’t buy into those such as Michael Moore; as well-intentioned as he probably is and the politicians, as well-intended as they might possibly be. Or, to the masses, as well-intentioned as they absolutely are.

This is simply too, too important to not think through in depth and detail. Please don’t let emotions make this decision for you.

Instead, check your premises.

*Note. Although this article was inended to complete the series on Healthcare, I added one more, which you can find here.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 3)

Over the first two articles, we’ve come to two conclusions:

• 1. Our once magnificent healthcare system is broken.
• 2. Government is the one that broke it (and, amazingly enough, is being asked by the multitude to fix it). 

So, now let’s look at the solution of Universal Healthcare. Basically, this means that Americans would be taxed even more than they currently are, however, at least everyone would have coverage and access to “free*” health care.

Except that what I just said is not completely true. In fact, it’s far from true. Note the italicized word, “access” (I cover the “free*” part at the end of the article). Actually, what people will have is access to a waiting list. They will have access to having a bureaucrat who doesn’t know or love them deciding if the ill they (or their children) are suffering rates a visit to the doctor, an operation or treatment of any kind. There is nothing “conspiracy theory-ish” about this. We know it’s true because we see it regularly within those countries that already have Universal Health Care.

There is a huge difference between access to a list and access to actual health care!

 In a column in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon wrote:

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain’s Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that “access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.”

Interestingly enough, in Canada, where by law they cannot pay for private medical treatment, the only option for those who either must have an operation or die is often to travel to America.

Of course, once our system is as socialistic as is theirs, that will no longer be an option for them.

Regarding our friends and neighbors to the north, a very key point is that Canada is currently looking at massive changes in their system because, while citizens affected by the long waiting lists are in an uproar, the costs of the system are completely out of control. 

Question: is this really what we want? Are we so anxious to blame a not-guilty party – The Free Enterprise System – that we will actually throw away still another freedom; the freedom to care for ourselves and our loved ones the way we see fit; not the way some faceless bureaucrat sees fit? Do we want our children getting the same expert and loving medical care as did our wounded vets at Walter Reed and similar government-run hospitals?

And, would we really rather see everyone suffer through Universal Healthcare (except the politicians and politically well-connected, of course – they’ll never have to wait on some list) instead of helping everyone by getting the market driven (and very healthy) health care system back? (Remember, we covered caring for the less fortunate in the previous article.)

In the final part of this series, we’ll look at the natural and most practical solution to our Healthcare System woes. 

—–

*The word, “free” was in quotation marks because nothing is free; you’ll actually be paying more for your own healthcare as well as for others’. Yes, more for your own because it will be run in the typical governmental fashion of high waste, where approximately 70-75 percent out of every dollar will go to administer the system rather than to health care itself. This percentage of waste is within the norm for all government programs.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 2)

In the previous article, after establishing that our current healthcare system is indeed broken, I asked that we check our premises and, instead of knee-jerkingly blaming the Free-Enterprise System for our healthcare woes and asking for a government solution (which is what Universal Health Care would be – the government in complete control of your and your children’s health care – though solution would certainly be an incorrect word), that we go back and look at its true cause.

The question is: is it the Free Enterprise System that destroyed our health care system?

Let’s take a quick look back about 50 or so years ago. At that time, our U.S. healthcare system was basically market-driven. What were the results? Well, let’s see; practically all Americans who wanted health insurance had it. It was affordable. Doctor’s offices weren’t reminiscent of Grand Central Station. In fact, doctors actually were known to make house calls. People who were less fortunate financially could always find a doctor or hospital that allowed them to pay via sliding scale. Many towns had free and low cost clinics where doctors and nurses volunteered several hours per week. And, hospitals? Well, if you recall, practically every major city had at least one charity hospital. Not too shabby, right?

Was anyone ever “left out in the cold?” Unfortunately, yes. Utopia – even in our great country – has never been an option. However, when it came to our Healthcare system, it was pretty darn close. Certainly more so than at any other place and time in history before or since.

And, then, a funny thing happened on the way to our healthcare system breakdown . . .

Government got involved. Really involved. I mean, really, really involved. As usual, they decided they knew more about how the market operates than . . . the market.

So, between excessive regulation of private health insurance, coverage mandates, lack of price competition for medical services, Medicare, Medicaid, government-forced reliance on third-party payers, more rules, more regulations, more taxes, etc. we have been driven into a system in which far too many American families go without any kind of health coverage because they simply cannot afford it.

Was this government’s purpose? Surely not. It’s just what they do. They take either non-existent, slight problems, or even legitimate problems, and they turn them into national disasters.

So, now, government is being asked to come to the rescue, and they will gladly oblige. Did you notice last year’s Presidential Campaign? Candidates Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney (yes, Republicans, too; plenty of them) and others. They all had the government solution to your healthcare woes.

Irony Break: putting this into healthcare vernacular, could we not say that government has broken our legs and is now being asked to fix them? Sure, they’ll give us crutches and then say, “See, if it wasn’t for us, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”

The point: Free Enterprise did not give us our current “Sicko” healthcare system; government intervention did.

Again, let’s think about this. Government caused the problem, and we want government to fix the problem that they caused? Does that make sense?

In the next article, we’ll take a look at Universal Healthcare and see what kind of results we could expect, based on the experience of other countries that have tried it.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 1)

The admonition to “check one’s premises” is at the heart (and, indeed within the very title) of this ongoing series regarding Capitalism versus Socialism.

And, perhaps, nowhere is that more important than when it comes to health care.

After all, there are two very key points about our modern healthcare situation; one which is very legitimately at “top of mind awareness” of most American citizens today. And that is:

Our health care system is broken. It is not working. Most people can’t afford it, and most everything about it is now counter-productive and in many ways harmful.

However, the next point is the one that is based on a false premise; a dangerously false premise, and that is:

Capitalism is the cause of our current health care mess. In other words…The free enterprise system has failed us in terms of health care.

And, that is simply false.

Of course, when not checking premises (thus a good chance of a premise being false) it’s easy for one to arrive at that false conclusion. After all, since we don’t have – what they have in many other countries – complete and full “Universal Health Care” the conclusion for many would naturally be that we do have a capitalistic/free enterprise-based health care system.

And that is also false.

We haven’t had a market-driven healthcare system for nearly 50 years. In Part Two of this series we’ll revisit that, see how things were when our healthcare system was market-based (hint: it worked really well) and what actually happened that made it go so far downhill in such a relatively short period of time.

After all, if it wasn’t the Free Enterprise System that turned things south, it had to be something, right? Indeed, and we’ll see exactly what it was.

Please keep in mind that things don’t happen in a vacuum. Typically, not only is there a reason for something, but that something usually happened further back than what is indicated by its current situation; what I call the “emotional decision point” from which we want to “base” the conclusion and subsequent actions.

When that’s the case, too often an emotional decision is made which not only doesn’t allow the actual problem (the cause) to be dealt with and solved but makes its manifestation – or current situation – even worse.

A couple of years ago, Michael Moore’s movie, “Sicko” captured the imagination of the country. I didn’t have to see it to know what would be in it; I’d read plenty of Mr. Moore’s thoughts about health care. I knew that – in his movie – he’d introduce us to Americans who have no health care insurance and are being left to suffer, or worse; to die.

And, you know what? Had I seen his movie, my heart would have broken for them as it does for the many others I know and/or know of who are experiencing this. Indeed, I ask myself why – in this most abundant of nations – should anyone have to go without adequate healthcare? But, before going running to our federal government to set things right for us…I’d check my premises.

Before asking government to be the solution to our “ills” (something at which they’ve proven to be very un-qualified), I’d first ask, “why are we in this position in the first place?”

I know how most politicians, how Michael Moore, and, unfortunately, how most Americans would answer: “The Free Enterprise System has let us down.”

The reason I know this is because I hear it constantly. I only wish that before people – especially those of high influence – would utter these conclusions; that they would first…yep, check their premises.

And that’s what we’ll do in the next installment. I hope you’ll join us.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Welfare – Has it Helped the Poor? (Part 4)

Thus far, we’ve looked at how the government’s “War On Poverty,” carried out through a terribly inefficient, ineffective and counter-productive (we won’t even talk about Unconstitutional since, unfortunately, that seems to be a non-issue these days) system of force, has – like most government programs – made things worse for everyone; most notably the truly needy!

Solutions that have proven to work were suggested, as well as ramping it up to something that would most likely work even better; market-based charities.

But, at the conclusion of the last installment I said there was one more point I wanted to save for its own article, and that is the insult toward all Americans by the very nature of the system itself.

I asked, “Who are government politicians and bureaucrats anyway to imply that without their force, we won’t help out our needy brothers and sisters, whether for one-time emergencies, or to provide them with a helping hand until they can get back on their feet?”

Let’s continue that thought with some excerpts from my friend, David Berland’s book, Libertarianism in One Lesson:

Government welfare programs insult and demean all of us. They tell us we have no compassion. That only legislators and bureaucrats have compassion. They tell us we don’t know how to effectively help people. They tell us we are unwilling to provide assistance to the needy unless we are forced to do so. Not one of these premises is true.

Government welfare interferes with our ability to express compassion for our families, neighbors, and needy people everywhere. Because of the heavy taxes Americans pay, we have less money left over to use as we think best to help other people.

. . . We must respect the compassion that others have because it is the same compassion we experience within ourselves. Most people know government welfare programs are terribly inefficient but still continue to support them precisely because people are compassionate. People don’t want to see others in distress. We all want to live in a world where people generously help each other. The fatal mistake is to believe that compassionate and effective charity can result when government force is used in the place of a genuinely charitable spirit.

I agree with everything David says. And, while the insult being highlighted is not nearly as important as actually helping the poor, the fact is . . . Welfare has simply not helped them.

Overall, government Welfare hurts far more people than it helps, and undermines the work of loving, caring individuals and private charities that have a proven record of helping people turn their lives around.

As we conclude our four-part “series within a series” let’s remember that . . .

#1  We do indeed need to help those who cannot help themselves.

#2  Government is not the proper, nor best qualified entity to take on this very important job.

Yes, let’s get the fate of the poor and truly needy out of the hands of government and into the hands of those who are most qualified to help. That way, we’ll actually help the poor…and not just talk about helping the poor.

In Part 8 we’ll begin a new topic; one that is at the heart of much controversy and, not surprisingly, misunderstanding. And that…is Healthcare

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Welfare – Has it Helped the Poor? (Part 3)

Thus far, we’ve looked at how, like most government programs (even the well-intentioned ones), the “War on Poverty” has been both an abject failure in its own right and has caused numerous unintended consequences. The two premises in this “series within a series’ are that:

#1 We do indeed need to help those who cannot help themselves.

#2 Government is not the proper, nor the best qualified, entity to take on this important job.

We’ve discussed some of the problems. But, what is the solution?

Non-proft and for-profit organizations and the individuals who comprise them.

Non-profits have always been the main and most effective helper of the poor. People coming together voluntarily to make sure their fellow human beings are cared for and assisted; both for the immediate and long-term.

When left to do what they do best, non-profit, private charities, both religion-based and secular have a proven record of excellence. They care, they are helpful, they are efficient, and they foster independence rather than dependence (and, when independence is not possible, they continue to provide sustenance).

I’m also a big proponent of “for profit” charitable organizations. These are ventures that would be founded and run by entrepreneurs. They would solicit funds from individuals and companies in order to support one or more types of poor. The big differences between these organizations and the government-run ones would basically be:

#1 The private, for-profit charity would be more accountable to their clients (donors), having to show them exact figures as to where the money would go, how it is spent, and how much they got to keep for their efforts. And, if they cheated and were caught, they’d be held accountable and perhaps face prison time, as opposed to the huge government bureaucracy backed by the full force (literally) and support of the government.

#2 Because this for profit, private charity would be run by a business person with a profit motive it would be run more efficiently. The fact is, private organizations run by someone who has a vested financial interest in its success runs their company much more efficiently than do bureaucrats who will make the same amount of money for not making changes and “messing up the works.”

#3. Those who are “gaming the system” will have no source of “suckers” willing to give them money for free. This also frees up additional monies in order to help more of the truly needy.

#4 Since private taxpayers, by not having to pay into the present wasteful welfare system, will save thousands of dollars per year, they’ll have more to donate to these private, more efficient charities.

#5 Also, for the same reason as the above, those who truly are needy will see more charitable dollars and genuine loving-caring assistance than they ever have before. They will also be empowered and encouraged to help themselves to get off this privately-provided welfare and gain back their self-esteem; self-esteem they can now pass on to their descendants.

People ask, “Do you believe in a safety net?’” Once we redefine the term “safety net” as being provided by individuals and voluntary groups, whether not-for-profit or for-proft as opposed to government, absolutely yes!! But remember, people help people; governments don’t help people. They hurt people. And, even if their intentions are good, their results are not. And good intentions plus negative results, do not equal positive results.

Who are government politicians and bureaucrats anyway to imply that without their force, we won’t help out our needy brothers and sisters, whether for one-time emergencies, or to provide them with a helping hand until they can get to their feet?

In the final part of this mini-series, we’ll look at the ultimate insult of a government-enforced welfare system.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Welfare — Has it Helped the Poor? (Part 2)

In Part One, we looked at how the “War on Poverty” — as well intentioned as it surely was — turned out to be an abysmal failure, creating not only more poor, but trapping these unfortunate souls within a system escaped by all too few, while effectively stripping them of their dignity and sense of self-reliance.

I suggested that, quite simply, if we wanted to truly help the poor (as opposed to merely providing lip service to helping the poor) then we needed to get government out of the Welfare business; a place in which they have proved to be totally incompetent.

As this entire series places a high value on understanding premises in order to come to logical conclusions, here are the two very well-intended questions asked by those who care deeply about the poor, believe totally in the Welfare System and can’t see how anyone or anything other than a government bureaucracy (the same body that has failed miserably at this for more than 50 years) can possibly help them:

Question: “Are you saying then that we shouldn’t help the poor? That we should just leave them on their own to starve?”

Answer: Absolutely not. In fact, just the opposite. I’m saying that it is our absolute moral responsibility as human beings to help the poor. (The key word being “help”).

Question: But, if the government doesn’t do it, who will?

Answer: THIS is the crux of the matter, and I shudder in both disbelief and sadness hearing that question as often as I do, not just in terms of this topic but when asked about practically everything else government has managed to completely mangle while fooling its citizens into believing that they are helping.

Wait! I’m going to correct myself here. I don’t think government really has fooled its citizens into thinking it has helped (by and large, the masses no longer believe that), but here’s what it has done which is just as dangerous: it’s fooled its citizens into believing that nothing but government could possibly help. And, when that’s the case, people will helplessly sit back and say, “go ahead.”

When it comes to Welfare, of course, this results in numerous problems; just a few being:

#1 The same actions and the same results. We’ve all heard the well-known definition of insanity; “doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.” What we’re doing now is even worse: the same thing over and over – that isn’t working – knowing we’re going to get the same results, and encouraging it anyway!

#2 Less volunteerism because “government is already doing it.” (Yes, there is still lots of volunteerism, but not nearly as much as there would be, and these volunteers and their organizations are often hamstrung by the very government agencies that see them as competition!)

#3 Less charity money raised because “government is already doing it.” Despite that, individuals still give a lot but not nearly as much as if government was not as actively involved.

#4 A huge waste of taxpayer money. This because, unlike charitable organizations, which must be accountable to their donors and typically have administrative fees around 25-35 percent, the government Welfare System (based on force, remember?) works on just about opposite numbers with an average of 65-75 percent of ever taxed dollar being used to support the bureaucracy administering the system.

#5 A much smaller percentage of people who are ever helped off of welfare. In fact, they are often encouraged to get on and, through numerous rules, regulations and some really weird reverse incentives outside the space and scope of this blog, are “encouraged” to stay on and stay dependent. This again is opposite of a private charity.

In the next installment … we’ll look at a Free-Market solution to helping those who cannot help themselves and need either temporary or ongoing assistance.