What About the Weak?
How will the poor, weak, handicapped, and helpless fare in a liberal society? Why are people poor, and what can be done about it?
In short, there will be more wealthy and resourceful people in a liberal society. Why is that? Why is there widespread poverty in the world today?
If someone is poor, it means there is a lack of wealth. If there is a lack of wealth, this is another way to say there is a lack of production. A lack of production, which creates all wealth and all the tools we have, is synonymous with a lack of individual freedom.
The problem is the absence of capitalism, meaning a social system protecting individual rights.
What about Redistribution?
Some will probably say that the lack of just redistribution of the values in a society is what causes poverty, but redistribution has negative consequences.
Those who do not produce value, receive «free» wealth, while those who are productive are «punished». Therefore, over time, this will decrease the motivation of the producers. This results in less production – and thus less wealth and increased poverty.
Redistribution is demoralizing for both parties. The one who produces is not allowed to live in freedom, and the one who receives is made passive. Working is important for everyone, and having had that «taken away» through demotivating welfare schemes are harmful.
In order to increased wealth, the government must respect individual rights. This way, poor, but productive, people can start value-adding businesses without hitting a wall of regulations. A free economy means more jobs and opportunities.
Increased production benefits every individual in a society, and more effective production means more solutions, which make life easier for everyone.
What About the Helpless?
Although most people who are poor today would be much better off in a liberal society, there is still a small group of completely helpless people – the seriously ill, mentally ill, and so on.
These people are dependent on charity. In a society with a high level of prosperity, however, more people will have more resources at their disposal.
Ask yourself, would you not help people like that? Would you live in a society where there was death and despair all around you? Or would you contribute a little to avoid it?
Charity is not an evil in liberalism, nor is it a moral duty, however. As long as you yourself will not suffer by helping others, this is something you would be more than happy to do.
Below, you can also see a video that explains why governmental initiatives against poverty are destructive:
- Poverty is caused by lack of wealth, production, and individual freedom
- Redistribution does not help, because the productive are «punished» and because the nonproductive become less motivated to create value
- Respect for individual rights means a free economy, increased levels of production, and increased prosperity for everyone
- The · helpless are dependent on charity, but there is every indication that a free and rational society will consist of good and helpful peopler