Time to Repeal the Welfare State
09. Jul, 2009 
14 Comments
by Ron Paul
Foreword to Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State
Sheldon Richman’s Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State is precisely the type of scholarly work needed to wake up the American people to the dangers posed by the welfare state. Richman demolishes the popular myth that the welfare state was a natural outgrowth of the Founding Fathers’ conception of individual liberty. In fact, the ideology behind the welfare state is a 180-degree turn from the individualism embraced by the Founders.
The men who led the American Revolution and drafted the Constitution understood that people flourish best under conditions of freedom – and that a centralized state has neither the legitimate authority nor the competence to care for the needy. Instead, the Founders realized that a state which attempts to provide security will end up destroying both liberty and the economic prosperity necessary to enhance individual security.
In contrast, the theoreticians of the welfare state believe that people are incapable of improving their condition and would ultimately become little more than pawns of the “greedy capitalists” without the support of a wise and benevolent state. Of course, while redistributionism and its nasty cousins – socialism, communism, and fascism – have created many shortages, one thing it has produced in abundance is power-hungry politicians eager to protect the people from the forces of private greed!
In fact, as Richman points out, one of the prime motivations of Bismarck, who created the prototype of the modern welfare state, was to use taxpayer monies to bribe the citizens into supporting his imperial regime. The use of the welfare state to cement popular support for the incumbent government remains intact. As a United States congressman, I regularly see how prevalent the welfare state mentality is among elected officials who use the tool of redistribution as a means to “buying votes” with the taxpayers’ own money.
One of the most powerful arguments used by those who would expand the welfare state is that absent government-provided welfare the lives of the poor would be “nasty, brutish and short.” Richman demolishes this argument by showing how voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.
Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. Many private charities have become seduced by the siren song of taxpayer funding into becoming little more than appendages of the welfare bureaucracy.
One of the most disturbing trends of recent years is the attempt by many so-called conservatives to entice the remaining independent charities into government dependency under the guise of expanding access to “faith-based” institutions. Of course, entanglement with the dependency-fostering welfare state will destroy the very attributes that make these institutions effective – freedom from government infiltration and regulation.
While freedom charities promote self-reliance, government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
As effective as this book is in showing the harm done by our current welfare policies, it would be a mistake to lump Richman in with those writers who condemn the welfare state’s cost and corrosive effects on society in order to build a case for making the welfare state more “efficient.”
Unlike many policy analysts Richman does not ignore the fundamental immorality behind the welfare state, which is, after all, built on theft. If it is wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul, how can it be right to levy taxes on Peter to pay Paul?
By tracing the history of the welfare and detailing how redistributionism damages both taxpayer and the recipient of government “aid,” Sheldon Richman has produced a book that is essential reading for any American wishing to understand how the welfare state is incompatible with constitutional government and a free society.
Such understanding is the first step toward reclaiming liberty. For only when the American people fully understand how damaging the welfare state is to both the nation’s economy and its moral character will the welfare state join other forms of statism on the ash heap of history.
All lovers of freedom have reason to be grateful to Sheldon Richman for his excellent work and to the Future of Freedom Foundation for publishing it.
Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.
Copyright © 2008 Future of Freedom Foundation
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Dr. Paul wrote:
…and that a centralized state has neither the legitimate authority nor the competence to care for the needy.
I agree that centralized government hasn’t the competence to care for the needy, but caring for the needy (feeding, clothing, housing, training/educating, providing medical care for, etc.) comes after ‘the needy’ are identified. So, I would take that further and assert that a centralized government doesn’t have the competence to make a proper distinction between the needy and the not needy. Only private local charitable organizations (generally religious institutions), and/or family members are competent to make such distinctions and to provide for those in need of assistance because they are formed of members of the same communities with those ultimately deemed to be amongst the favored classes we call ‘the needy,’ often times of people who are actually more needy than the objects of their attentions.
If it were up to me I’d put a halt to all government “charity” immediately, and damn the consequences. Sure, it would be better by some estimations to phase out government “charity” since the dependent among us are, well, dependent on it to the extent that many of them would revolt once deprived of that which they’ve become accustomed to receiving on a generational level thus feeling themselves entitled to. But we’ve seen how far attempts to cut back on government charity have worked — only to create more of the same, throwing good money after bad.
A person would be hard-pressed to convince me that I owe part of my living which my children are entitled to by right of inheritance, to him due to his ‘needy’ status, and vice versa. I should rather that he attempt to physically steal it from me than to vote it out of my pocket. At least in the former case we’d both be able to retain some portion of our individual dignities. As it is, though, he’s generally just a piece of garbage that doesn’t have guts enough to confront me man-to-man, and I’m reduced to conceding to his demands out of fear that his ’strong-man’ (the government) will come to get me. But the whole truth of the matter is that in order to curtail government dependency you have to first disempower those who are government dependents. That means cutting way, way back on the migration of dependent immigrants (legal and illegal) to this country for starters.
Many of us are fond of extolling the founding generation for its wisdom and virtue in establishing our original form of government, but when it comes to things like the original mode of determining citizenship and voting qualifications, choosing who and from where we would receive our immigrants, etc., well now, they were just ignorant, hypocrites, xenophobic, and blah blah blah. But whatever.
I totally Agree,
Since when has government ever defined anything correctly, Including the “Needy”. Our great and wise Government thought it was a priority that everyone got up to speed with digital TV.. what does this tell you?.
Charity in every form should be the roll of churches and companies that are setup and designed for this, Not the Federal government. I think we would see the welfare rolls shrink if handouts were being implemented by organizations that deal with people in distress on a regular basis. I am certain that the United way would take a serious interest in the single parent of 5 kids, with a more hands on approach then just doling out monthly checks for food and rent without seeing some form of production in return. of coarse this type of program would spike the Victim meter.
Once again the simple answer is the best answer. There isnt anything that Ron Paul says is secret or unknown. The sad part is few will put forth the effort to read the history to get his obvious message
I think we would see the welfare rolls shrink if handouts were being implemented by organizations that deal with people in distress on a regular basis.
Think about it in terms like this — imagine an able-bodied ‘needy’ person currently receiving government welfare of various kinds having to present himself, once a month we’ll say, before a panel of his peers and neighbors who’ve witnessed his gambling, drinking, doping, partying, selling his food assistance for fifty cents on the dollar, etc., etc., etc., first hand, or have heard about it from reliable sources. Not only would they be a lot less eager to give him more assistance money to squander away through fraud, waste and abuse, but he himself would be a lot less eager to face them a second and third time, etc. The end result would be that he’d be faced with a choice — swim or drown. And he damn sure isn’t going to drown, which leaves but one option.
How true.
Removing the struggle for dignity from a person may be very tempting to some but it is what makes us all better people. It sets the social tenor for good to rise above bad.
I thought at one time that I might help a person that came to me and cried a river. I gave of my time, money and saved items I could spare. I was then warned by this persons family that I would not be appreciated and would regret helping out as that was exactly what this person wanted, a handout. I ignored them and soon learned my lesson. No good came of my help and in fact as soon as things were in order such that there was little to be “needed” the word spread and there were more people living under that roof sucking up the free life. It was my ego that made me think I knew better than those who would have the best chance at helping this person because they had the history and facts at hand. They knew what issues needed to be dealt with and that it was an intervention by me that simply prolonged this persons ill conceived version of liberty.
I was only detached one level from that family that had the power to do what I did if deemed proper. I intruded unwisely. How can a government agency removed further do better? It can’t. Worse than that the money spent on creation of that agency comes directly from the pockets of those who need it to do good when truly needed. I learned from my error, how does government learn ?
Terry the welfare state does need serious help. But you statements about “panel of his peers and neighbors” is that not big brother in action. Or atleast opening that door? I doebile welfare should be limited to 6months. If you cant fix your life in 6 months your screwed anyway. As to the 6 month limit after accepted for welfare. If welfare is still needed put those individuals to work for chinese labor. These individuals will beg to get off of welfare. After recieving welfare benifits you no longer qualify for welfare for 5 years. Make welfare a brutal thing once introduced into a labor force. This could be considered harsh but the free loaders will leave. Anyone who can physically work will leave for better paing jobs. In the first few years this practice will be hard but the oppinion of welfare will change quickly after such policys are heard about. I do realise there is labor laws but lets face it. Following the law is not somehting that this govt has been known for now is it?
Big Brother? No.
I’m not talking about a panel assigned by a government agency or whatever. As I said above, I’d first put an end to ALL government “charity,” and turn the job over to private charitable organizations where it should have been left to begin with. The ‘panel’ (or ‘board’ or whatever you want to call it) would be formed of members thereof. Since they would be residents of the same towns and districts and neighborhoods as the aforementioned ‘needy,’ they would be wholly better equipped to determine between cases. There would be “government” or “governing” involved, of course, but that’s purely necessary to any functioning entity right down to the family and individual levels.
I have an older sister and brother in law that are old hands at taking advantage of help from every single source they can find, including their church, family members and friends, they have gone as far as sending out emails to everyone in their address book requesting money, everything from asking for money to their car fixed, to asking for money to make their house payment, these are not loans but handouts, and It never ends..The problem has less to do with being needy then it is of money management, and living within ones means..
I say this because I also know people who live on 12,000 a year, although they could certainly use the help, they also understand that they have no means to pay it back.
I would venture to say that the majority of people who fall into the category of “Need” are of the same caliber of my Sister and her winner of a husband.
Larry,
Uhh, I have a sister of the same caliber. Believe me when I say that were it up to me he would, quite literally, be begging for my indulgence.
Now, I try my best to operate within the law. But if it comes down to protecting my own, he’s going to come up on the short end of it, end of story. I’ve also transmistted this opinion to the local ‘powers that be’ as both a warning and a commonsensical approach. They have responded in a manner consistent with my view, i.e., the D.A. is going to take this and ‘run with it.’ She may not think it appropriate, but I personally will not allow him to murder her at his own discretion. In other words, he’ll go down first. And I’ll personally see to it.
Come get me.
If that’s somehow considered advocating “violence,” then so be it.
The so-called Welfare State was created by members of Congress, aided by the appointees in the federal judiciary, perverting the separation of powers between the States and their federal government and then violating the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution. Where has Mr. Paul been on this?
People of Our brother in laws caliber are not much of a threat, they lack the will to provide, and people who who lack the will, also lack the ability to be confrontational. Now the bigger issue may be dragging your sister out of that disaster. I have played the scenario out in my head over and over, and it always comes up as an ultimatum. “either him, or your family. But he ain’t coming along for this ride”
This is a 52 year old man who has never held a job longer then a couple of months AT BEST.. His current “career” is telemarketing, selling insurance.. he has been there since the beginning of June so he is almost ready for retirement. It is situations like this that make labor camps look appealing, if a perfectly healthy man of sound mind refuses to eek out a living, he should be either cut off from social programs, or volunteer for social programs..What sucks about this answer is I am totally against that kind of oppressive government.. But I am even more against the mentality of sucking off the hard working public in the way of free handouts without any oversight…The next option would be banishment.. “devils island”.. give them a plot of land, and a some live stock and let them live or die on their own merits, review their progress annually for consideration back to society…My imagination sometimes runs wild…
Where has Mr. Paul been on this?
Well, I’m no fan of Dr. Paul’s brand of ‘libertarianism,’ but he’s been consistent ‘on this’ as always. And that consistency is laudable.
My problems with Dr. Paul have more to do with his inability to distinguish between his libertarianism and … everyone else’s. Whether he likes it or not, some people don’t adhere to his worldview. Period. It doesn’t matter whether his is the correct worldview or not. The facts are the facts. End of story. My own opinion is that pure libertarians should start (with our assistance) their own, self-governing, independent society. When we check in on them ten years down the road, that they’ve dropped their libertarianism in large measure should not surprise us. …
Well, my bol and I have had a couple of standoffs over the years. In both cases he backed down. One case involved a 16 year old brother of mine. I simply insisted that to whip his *ss, he’d first need to whip mine, which he didn’t seem quite so eager to pursue. Otherwise, I’ve warned him from time to time on these occasions. But like the people of the declaration, he seems deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. But, oh well, I guess I haven’t thoroughly made my point as yet.