In an interview with ABC news, Ron Paul recently said this in response to the question of what he believes the duties of government are;
"Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. … Protect our environment through private property rights. … That's it."
Sounds like a great list, but many out there might say, "What about providing for the impoverished, helping out those in need?"
That's a great point. There are many out there who truly need help making ends meet. But the next question should be, is that a job best done by government?
There are many charities out there, great charities that do a fantastic job supplying for those who need it. In fact, I think it's fairly easy to say that they do a far better job at it than the government, certainly more efficiently. Most charities will supply a guarantee that a certain percentage of your donation will go to directly to where it is needed, often as much as 80 or 90 percent. Is there anyone out there that believes that 80 or 90 percent of tax money sent to welfare or other government progams goes to those in need? In fact, I would guess that something south of 50 percent is much closer to the truth.
Then comes the question of if the government even has the right to levy money from taxpayers in order to give it to others. Some would say that not helping out those in need, letting them live in poverty, is simply un-American. From the other side of the aisle comes the argument that deeming another person more deserving or your hard-worked money than you infringes on your right to the pursuit of happiness. Does the government truly have a duty to provide for the impoverished or is it just a thought proposed to us by elected officials attempting to improve public opinion? This issue is one that does not have a clear-cut answer.
As I often do, I would like to look at this from the angle of another situation. Your business. What would your reaction be if your workplace decided to take money from your paycheck in order to donate it to charity? How about if your pay was reduced in order to pay for a raise for the impoverished janitor? What if the CEO of your company did this while running for elected office, and while he and the board voted to raise all of their pay?
Again, this question cannot be answered without first answering the question of whether the government has an inherent duty to equalize the economy, or if we just accept it seemingly always has attempted to do this.
