Three reasons why state funded welfare is impossible and private charity is not
One: The impossibility of knowledge:
In a previous post, Answering an Unanswerable Question, I pointed out that it is impossible for “the state” to provide essential services because it does not and cannot know what to produce, how much to produce, etc., etc.. An addendum to this insurmountable barrier is that there is no logical stopping point to prevent the extension of state welfare. The fallacy that one may think that he knows what should be state funded and to what extent can be illustrated by a simple test. Let’s assume that everyone in society thinks that the blind should get state funded welfare. After all, being blind is cut and dry, right? Well, it is not. Just ask any optometrist. There are many, many eye disabilities besides total blindness and many levels other than total blindness. What should be included and what should be the benefit? How about partial blindness? How do we define partial blindness? Fifty percent blind? I’ve recently seen ads on TV for a medication that helps those with straight-ahead limitations but good vision along the periphery. How about cataracts and retinal tears? I’m no optometrist, but even a layman should know that vision impairment is very complex. Some maladies can be cured or mitigated, but I imagine many cannot. Where to draw the line? And once the line is drawn, one can imagine the clamor for extending the line “just a smidgen” with no logical end.
Two: The welfare state feeds upon itself:
Secondly, the welfare state is parasitic upon its host, the private economy, so in effect it is feeding upon itself and must end at some point. Yet, unlike private welfare/charity, there is no mechanism for determining its logical endpoint. This reality is lost on those who demand more for existing programs and wish to expand the scope of welfare to include new programs. When the state tries to placate the welfare lobby, it fails for the simple reason that the state’s resources are limited and the welfare lobby’s demands are not, creating great discontent and even violence among the populace. Naturally, the state must resort to violence of its own to protect private property and even citizens’ lives. The “solution” usually is to grant more money to the proximate cause of the violence, which solves nothing, because the solution belongs in the private sector. Eventually the private wealth generating sector of society, which funds welfare, is sucked dry. The welfare states of the West are approaching the limit. Rather than admitting that the welfare game is up, the welfare recipients have turned violent, witness the riots in Europe.
Three: State welfare is unethical:
The third major objection to state funded welfare is a serious one of ethics. By what rationale does the state invoke to grant itself the authority to take honestly earned funds from some citizens in order to give it to others supposedly more deserving? My neighbor has no such right to present me with a bill for (you name it) say his son’s college education, drug rehabilitation fees, sexually transmitted disease treatments, or thousands of maladies acquired both by accident of birth or lifestyle choice? By what mystery does a majority gain the power to bill me for these payments to unknown others, whereas my neighbor cannot? If this power does not originate in individual rights, from where does it come and what are its limitations, if any exist?
Private charity allocates best
Only the private sector can allocate welfare/charity. Charity is an economic good whose value can be determined only by individuals’ preferences. It’s no use saying that it should NOT be an economic good, subject to the natural decision making process of all individuals. But the fact is that there is no all-knowing intelligence to tell us exactly which maladies should be funded and to what extent, because charity is a constantly changing decision by millions of individuals. I’m sure that every reader of this article gives to charity. But since you are presented with thousands of charitable choices, how do you decide which ones to fund and to what extent? If you yourself cannot easily decide, how can some government bureaucrat?
Solid understanding of real economics is necessary
All laws and regulations that prevent the free flow of capital and labor must be abolished. That means minimum wage laws, onerous environmental and safety regulations, and mandatory government run savings and health programs. Yes, the transition will not be without problems, but must be done nevertheless. The welfare state is failing financially and socially everywhere. It cannot be sustained financially and it has corrupted civil society. The sooner we admit these facts and take decisive action the better.
© Patrick Barron 2026 Website
