“What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” - Adam Smith
In a previous article I discussed how social-liberalism is directly contrary to liberalism in a classical sense. We defined classical liberalism as “a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government.” In the article, I specifically targeted social-liberalism, which seeks to increase the financial liberty of the less fortunate through by redistributing wealth of other citizens to the less fortunate, which in turn reduces the liberty of those in higher tax brackets. This is what is known as socialism. I have reasons for opposition to socialism, however these reasons do not include an ambivalence to the poor or the less fortunate.
The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more. - Michelle Obama
The question of social-liberalism is a question of “are we obligated to help the poor” and “what is the best way to help them?” Although I won’t go into an argument why, I firmly believe that we do have a moral obligation to help the poor.
There is no public education in India, and 39% of the population is illiterate.[1] Illiteracy and a lack of education in turn drastically limit what jobs an individual can perform, and what pay they will receive. As for the second part, I believe the best way to help the poor includes education and an expectation of responsibility. As opposed to giving people a check or food stamps, I believe in providing them with an education so that they can earn their own living. Education enables individuals to take charge of their own destinies’ and earn their own way in the world, as opposed to standing around with an open hand, hoping the government gives them what they need.
All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. - Aristotle
A robust public education system is of vital importance in the elimination of poverty and flourishing of society. Prisons are full of uneducated persons, the unemployed and poor are overwhelmingly the least educated. The percentage of impoverished individuals drops off considerably as education increases.[2] The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 68% of State prison inmates did not receive a high school diploma.[3] There is a vicious circle of poverty preventing individuals from excelling in school and a lack of education resulting in poverty. To say which came first is akin to the question of the chicken or the egg. A public education system that provides a quality learning experience to all US Citizens regardless of background is vital. However, education begins at home, which requires responsible parents who guide and hold their children accountable.
Welfare does not help individuals work harder in school, nor does it increase their responsibility. There needs to be incentives for individuals to get off welfare and become productive members of society. Those that do need a helping hand with food, clothing, shelter, or medicine, are best aided by private charities because of the bloat and inefficiency of the government. It also allows citizens the liberty of voting with their dollars by supporting those charities that they believe best help others, as well as setup scholarships for education for those that need it. This takes power away from the government and increases the liberty of the citizens. Lower taxes allows for more discretionary income that can be directly donated to private charities, bypassing the inefficiencies of government. A free public education system would need to be funded by taxes of some sort, however, a more educated tax based with higher income would allow for lower taxes and yet an overall greater amount of dollars that could be spent towards education. In other words, taxing ten people one dollar will provide the same revenue as taxing two people five dollars.
There is no doubt that some individuals would use an increase in retained income resulting from lower taxes only to better their own lives, however, an increased focus on developing a culture of philanthropy, which can be promoted in school as well as in the many facets of society, will help ensure that those who have been blessed by our country will in turn help those who have been less fortunate.
In summation, as opposed to social-liberalism that involves government handouts, stimulus checks administered with inneficienty, welfare dependent citizens, and high taxes, we should focus on educating our children, providing the poor with educational opportunities, and private charities.
Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant. - John Adams
- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html [↩]
- http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/bpoveduc.html [↩]
- http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ecp.htm [↩]
Tags: Classical Liberalism, Liberal, Philanthropy, Public Education, Socialism
