I just had an interesting phone conversation with my mom about liberalism vs conservatism in the context of moral obligation and government involvement. It started when she said something to the effect of opposing conservatism. After a brief discussion, we realized she was largely referring to the implementation of conservatism in our nation’s past (e.g., the tie-ins to religion, etc.), but I did find out that she feels that everyone has a moral responsibility to assist those in need. I found myself defending the “pure conservative” viewpoint of small government against her suggestions that we should prop up the needy through government mandate.
First of all, it’s worth stating that both liberals and conservatives express a biased view of who the poor are. The liberals paint a picture of the starving, suffering masses who have done nothing to deserve their situation, but just happened upon an extended period of bad luck, bad circumstances, or lack of opportunity. This side sometimes paints every individual as a star just waiting to shine.
On the other hand, the conservatives look on the poor as ne’er-do-wells and criminals, impossible to reform, not worthy of assistance, and not of value to society. This side will occasionally even express sentiments such as “they deserve what they get” and “they obviously aren’t working hard enough.”
The reality, of course, is in between. There are poor people at both of those extremes, but many fall somewhere in the middle. People have anecdotal evidence to back up their positions, but no such evidence is really valid except to disprove the other sides’ view (it disproves a statement of the form “everyone in situation X has property Y” but cannot meaningfully substantiate claims of that form).
Moving on, my main point is that freedom need not be incompatible with altruism. It is, however, incompatible with mandated altruism. Liberals want laws in place to force the wealthy to assist the needy. (Such ideas are part of what had the raving anti-Communists from the 50s and 60s so upset, although the irony is that their behavior was such an overreaction that it became hypocrisy of the worst sort by harming the human freedom of speech.)
One interesting thing my mom said to me toward the end of our discussion is that no one can be completely secure in life, no matter how much he prepares for the worst case scenario. “What do you do when all your preparations fail?” she asked. Government programs such as welfare and unemployment are just that: additional security blankets – one more layer to protect you in case you fall. Unfortunately, that type of security comes at the expense of individual freedom. It represents yet one more law restricting freedom – a tax if you will – that says you must pay money for this cause, whether you agree with it or not.
My argument was that charities fulfill the role of altruism effectively without sacrificing freedom. However, I acknowledge a few counterarguments. First, government mandate results in greater revenue, because people who would not normally donate are forced to pay. Second, a unified law managing systems like welfare and unemployment ensure that people acquire needed support according to the rules, and have the court system to fall back upon if something goes wrong. Third, it may be easier for a private charity to fall victim to corruption, becoming guided by a thirst for profit rather than a desire to help others.
All of these arguments have rebuttals to varying degrees. Regarding greater revenue through mandated payment: individual freedom of choice should never take a back seat to convenience or increased efficiency. Regarding a unified system and corporate corruption, the government is not immune to corruption either; a bunch of private charities to choose from lessens the chance that any one corrupt charity will survive, when individuals can simply choose to donate to a different entity; and as for the court system, there are laws in place governing fraud and other crimes that cover all necessary contingencies. A government-enforced system continues to promote the flawed idea that everyone is entitled to support, no matter what, which should not be the case (that is, there should be a minimum standard of productivity, or at least effort, which a person must meet).
Lastly, and most importantly, is that liberals often complain that the traditional conservatives are attempting to force their brand of morality (in the form of Christianity) on the nation, by supporting faith-based initiatives, school prayer, etc. But we must be careful not to fall into the same trap. We may feel as individuals that we have a moral obligation to assist the needy, but to pass government law mandating that everyone do so is just as much of a moral imposition as that of the conservatives. And if there’s one thing that everyone seems to agree on, it’s that hypocrisy is bad.