Nicky Cheese

Whenever I hear the term “social justice”, I think of a direct and necessary absence of individual justice. It’s a sick visceral reaction to a sick erroneous concept.

On the subject, Rhode Island’s free market think tank, the Ocean State Policy Research Institute, wrote one of the best op-eds I’ve read in the last month or so. Entitled Freedom is the Cost of Social Justice, I’ll excerpt it liberally:

Ayn Rand once said that the difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time. It appears that that time is now in many parts of the world. London decides who is worthy of [health] care and Canada holds its market captive like America holds the poor in public schools. Oppression sells its wares under the guise of “social justice” that demands that state’s safety net instead become society’s fabric. Once people become dependent, individual freedom is lost.

So, when Governor Caricieri announced that some of our tax dollars would be used to discourage out of wedlock childbirths and promote marriage, the reception was less than homey. Government isn’t supposed to help people make choices, it is simply supposed to write them checks.

But for those of us who truly relish freedom – this is indeed a perplexing situation. It is beyond debate that two biological parents is the preferred environment for a child. But does government have the authority to influence lifestyle, or, dare I say, “moral” choices? The governor’s response was the only logical statement anyone might accept: ‘if taxpayers must pay for other people’s lifestyle choices, we have the right to influence those choices.’

In a market driven social service world, people put their money with groups representing the values they support. Secular or not, donations were a way for people to “make the world a better place” in a manner these donors found worthy. But it’s not like that anymore, at least not in RI.

Rhode Islanders like to say they are compassionate, but that compassion isn’t voluntary. In 2005 the Catalog of Philanthropy released a report called the Generosity Index that ranked states on their “giving.” Rhode Island ranked second lowest in the nation on the amount of money donated to charity according to itemized deductions. During that same year, RI spending on public assistance programs was the third highest in the country. And this is nothing new. Our “giving rank” from 1997 to 2004 (most recent year reported) was either 49th or 50th.

So now that we have developed a system that dictates a high level of government enforced charity, whose morals will we use to administer it? Even if the proceeds are derived by coercion and government charity is given without condition, this itself is a value system that sends serious economic and moral signals. Rather than representing the absence of judgment, the evaporation of stigma within our politically-correct, amoral government welfare state is a choice of values….

Society can strike a balance between the Scarlet Letter and Murphy Brown. It is far better that this dynamic process takes place without the fear the government will pick the winner. Instead competing value systems can exist simultaneously and their successes and failures can inform one another. The best deal we can possibly hope for is for government to recede a bit, making space for private action to strengthen the fabric of society with the safety net remaining just that. But if society does continue government administered charity, you must accept a little totalitarianism. Me, I prefer freedomism.

3 Responses so far | Have Your Say!

1. Freedom is the Cost of Social Justice | Atlas Network
   July 10th, 2008 at 8:32 am #

   [...] tip to blogger Nicky Cheese for pointing me to it (albeit [...]
2. Nicky Cheese » Blog Archive » Most Politically-Incorrect Statement of the Month
   July 24th, 2008 at 9:26 am #

   [...] A couple weeks ago I excerpted from a phenomenal op-ed they wrote. [...]
3. 

   E!! (Elizabeth Crum)
   July 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm #

   Wow, nice op-ed. The inverse ratio of voluntary charity to forced public assistance (through taxation) is interesting. We all need to remember to mention that more when arguing against the welfare state.

   Government programs should never replace the call of our own Conscience to help one another, but human beings are often lazy…so many folks are content for that to be the case. And because they ARE lazy, they don’t bother to follow up and hold anyone accountable for efficiency/effectiveness. Bureaucrats and lobbyists and government employees benefit from the willingness of the public to blindly trust them…

   E!! (Elizabeth Crum)’s last blog post..LOL