“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” – Adam Smith

I firmly believe that those who have more than they need have a moral obligation to share with the less fortunate. The United States, in particular, has great disparity between the rich and poor. There are many hardworking people who deserve to be rich and enjoy the fruits of their labor. But there are also the poor, many of whom suffer from mental or physical disabilities, who through no fault of their own cannot provide for themselves. Two people might agree that the less fortunate need to be aided, but could still fall into two very different camps on how best to provide this aid.

Some believe that government programs are essential to helping the poor. And indeed the government provides some assistance to the less fortunate, but would anyone really choose to rely on their food, shelter, and basic needs being provided by the same people who run the post office? Do governmental leaders really have the best interests of the poor at heart and act in the best interests of the less fortunate?

“I’ve always lived my life by the rule, ‘If you get, you give.’” – Terrance Silver

Personal philanthropy enables one to directly help a charitable organization without the bureaucratic, governmental middle-man. Rather than relying on the government to collect your taxes, then relying on the elected representatives to decide what to do with this money; individuals should directly support the charitable organizations of their choice. Does the government know better than it’s citizens how best to distribute wealth?

Some might argue that allowing people to keep more of their money will only result in people keeping more of their money, and not passing more of it along to charitable organizations. They believe that only through taxation by the government can we ensure that critical social programs are funded. Certainly there are some people with no interest in helping others. However, the simple solution to this problem is tax deductible giving; in which charitable donations can be incentivized to a large degree.

Personal philanthropy allows an individuals to participate in charitable acts to a greater degree than tax-funded government programs. It stems from the belief that empowered citizens, not government bureaucrats, are the best agents of social change.  But some people believe that government bureaucrats are best equipped to sharing wealth.

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” – Michelle Obama

By making this statement, Michelle Obama is assuming that wealth and prosperity is a zero sum game, or a distributive bargaining situation.  In other words, in order for person B get 1 extra dollar, they are going to have to take it from person A, it’s negotiating over a fixed pie.  In reality this is not the case.  The truth is, wealth can be created.

For example, lets say that person A has an Apple Orchard with 20 trees, and person B does not.  We could tax person A and demand they give 20% of their apple harvest to person B.  However, person B will always be reliant on person A, and person A will have control over how big the harvest is.  Let’s say that person A is no longer wants to maintain 20 trees so they only water, care for, and harvest from 10 trees.  Person B’s supply of Apples has just been cut in half.  In response, the government taxes person A twice as much to try to offset the drop in production.  But this just makes person A mad, and they decide they aren’t going to work just to have their apples taken away and given to someone who doesn’t work.  Person A abandons the orchard.  Now person A and person B both get nothing.

It would be much better if person A voluntarily gave apples to person B, that way they would control how much of their produce they give up, and they won’t grow disgusted by someone always taking their apples away.  Also, person A could teach person B how to run their own orchard, so that person B could control how many apples they would get.  Michelle Obama wants to take away apples from people who own an orchard and give them to those who don’t own anything, reducing person B to a beggar.  I want everyone to own an orchard.  We need to help the less fortunate through education and empowerment, not handouts.

“Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” – John Adams

Instead of providing the poor with fish (or apples), we should teach them how to fish.  Empowering people to help themselves and help others is an ideal that can be accomplished through education.  Income is directly correlated with education level (see graph below), and as a result, the best way to escape poverty is through education.¹

The education system of the United States is by no means perfect, but it does provide our young citizens with the opportunitiy to work hard, receive a high school diploma, and move on to college.  It is critically important for the future of the country to develop and maintain a top-quality education system to empower our young people to become productive members of society, so that they can provide for themselves and for others.

1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2F2002pubs%2Fp23-210.pdf&ei=4YoMSsCXOZKwMp7_hbIG&usg=AFQjCNFeWjsCVxY8rfD3rrYRYb2SnO7jow&sig2=H6RHRZulmXPgDfA-gQtoIw