Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyS
I don't agree that government is capable of making better allocation decisions for welfare recipients than local charities. I also don't agree that welfare does more good than harm, both in principle and practice. When you remove the need for people to work, you remove their dignity. The tiny percentage of truly needy people can be more than adequately managed by local charity.
Maybe it's just my inexperience, young age, lack of exposure, and privileged life getting in the way of reality, but that is how I see it.
|
The reason I stated that the government is in the best position (better than charities) to regulate the help is that, in addition to being able to spread the load over everyone making it less of an impact, they also are in a position to be better organized and more efficient. With charities, volunteers are responsible for distributing the help. And while they very well may care more than social workers, they aren't trained to do it professionally, and, at least in theory, would be more susceptible to getting taken advantage of by those that abuse the help and efficiency (of help distributed vs. cost) should also be better when a large entity handles the whole country.
Now notice I didn't say that's how it is, just that the gov't is in the best position to do it right. I'm aware that our government lacks this theoretical efficiency, but it should be the goal in mind when reform is implemented.