How many times have you heard the following argument?
Charity will never replace government. The problem with charity is that it’s unfocused, uncoordinated, and inefficient. Those who have resources to contribute to the needy don’t know who the needy are or where they’re located. If they end up giving at all, they’re as likely to give to those who don’t need the resources as to those who do. Governmental agencies, by contrast, specialize in distributing resources to the needy. They do it efficiently and effectively.
It’s thought that this is an argument for a liberal welfare state vis-à-vis a libertarian nightwatchman state. The problem is that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that private charity is inefficient and ineffective relative to the government. All this shows is that those who wish to donate resources should donate them to the government! If you believe that governmental agencies do a better job than individuals of distributing resources, or, more particularly, that government can do a better job than you can, then by all means cut a check to the government forthwith. It’s simple. When you pay your income tax this April, throw in some extra money. If you’re due a refund, forgo it. Put your money where your mouth is. If other people wish to donate privately, that’s their business. Not everyone believes that the government is the most effective or efficient way to get resources to the needy. Some of us like to target our donations. I, for example, donate to the Humane Society of North Texas.