“What about the poor?”
“What about those who fall through the free market cracks?”
“How would your free market ideal care for these folks?”
“You can’t be so cruel and heartless to be against a social safety net, can you?”
These are questions I commonly encounter. Most of the time the individuals asking these types of things consider the questions rhetorical. I answer them anyway, this representing my typical response.
The last question on the above list begs for a different, more expanded answer, as the question contains an accusation. The question also contains an invalid assumption. Let me explain.
To be more accurate (and honest), the questioner should accuse free marketeers of being against an involuntary social safety net, one to which all are required (at gun point) to contribute. I know lots of people who are struggling to get by, particularly young people, but from whose paychecks are deducted the loot from which the “safety net” is forged. A large part of this robbery is for the benefit of individuals who don’t need this loot, but rather and usually have lived to a magical age whereby they can share the spoils. Are free marketeers opposed to this involuntary safety net, the refusal to contribute to which leads to jail or worse? This is the question I would pose in response and I believe one which more accurately portrays the violence and cruelty of the statists.
The assumption embedded in the statist’s question about the “safety net” is that no safety net can or has ever existed without government. Nothing could be further from the truth and as brilliantly demonstrated in David Beito’s fascinating book, “From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967,” non-governmental safety nets have a rich history.
I met the author during the recent Stossel Show taping and was delighted to hear about the history of these organizations. Well written and impeccably researched, this book should be on every free marketer’s shelf. The accounts of the voluntary safety nets in the book are gripping and are indeed, the best answer to the statist’s demands for a welfare state.
Healthcare (including hospitalization and surgery) provided by these fraternal societies was characterized by the recipients as kind and compassionate, certainly a departure from the “care” received by current welfare recipients. There was also no difficulty with access to the care provided by the fraternal societies, yet another distinction from the experience of current victims of the government safety net.
Even in the arena of charity, the free market provides for a better allocation of resources. The brutality of the confiscatory state can never be justified, but loses all legitimacy when the utilitarian argument is also forfeited.
GKS