Gov. 1A-45: Voluntary Arrangements and People in Distress

Pick any chapter in How to Argue, and write 250 words on this: "How could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder?" 31. “If government doesn’t relieve distress, who will?”

In times of distress and disaster, people often turn to the government for aid and relief. After all, if the state didn’t relieve their distress, who would? This view, however, is missing something. It gives undue credit to the politics of plunder underlying state-imposed solutions but ignores the power of voluntary arrangements. This essay explores the benefits of voluntary arrangements, both charitable and businesslike as a solution to distress and how they provide a superior alternative to state intervention. By the end the reader should understand why private aid is a more practical and morally superior alternative to state mandates. By understanding the benefits of private assistance, we can gain a better understanding of how to effectively help those in need. This knowledge must include an understanding of existing activities, their alignment with individual freedom and liberty, and their practical advantages. Overall, voluntary arrangements are the solution to disasters because they are morally and practically superior for the people concerned.

When considering solutions that affect millions of people, it is imperative to take their moral considerations into account. Voluntary arrangements align with individual freedom and liberty by allowing individuals to decide how they want to contribute to relief efforts. Political solutions, on the other hand, rely on coercion and force to take resources from some groups to distribute to others. Charity is only charity if it is done voluntarily, otherwise it is brutish and amoral. Political redistribution violates the rights of countless individuals regardless of their so-called voted consent. Such a policy undermines the principles of individual liberty and self-expression. Voluntary arrangements maintain the moral principles of individual freedom and avoid the coercion inherent in state-imposed solutions.

The moral claim is all well and good, but statists may object that private aid can't be relied upon, and that sometimes you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. On the contrary, private aid, such as insurance and charity, provides compelling incentives for anyone to contribute to relief efforts. Insurance companies have a strong financial incentive to operate efficiently and effectively ensuring the safety of their clients as they must compete with other providers in a free market. Similarly, charities rely on the goodwill and donations of their supporters to continue operating. This creates a strong need to use donations effectively and ensure they are making a real difference in the lives of those they seek to help. In contrast, state programs are aligned with political pressures and are rarely held accountable for inefficiency or wasting precious resources. Moreover, reliance on the maternal state reduces the public's sense of responsibility and commitment to relief efforts. This generates a crippling dependency on unilateral extortion to pay for mutual aid. Voluntary arrangements allow individuals to allocate resources according to their knowledge and preferences, creating a sense of ownership and commitment that minimizes waste and increases efficiency. In summary, private aid, such as insurance and charity, can be relied upon to operate effectively. They provide excellent incentives for providing effective relief and aid to those in need.

Throughout history, there have been numerous successful examples of voluntary arrangements providing effective relief and aid without the need for state intervention. Mutual aid societies, covenant communities, insurance agencies, and private fire departments are just a few examples of these organizations. For instance, mutual aid societies were prevalent in the United States during the late 1800s and early 1900s, where members of communities would band together to support each other during times of distress. In the absence of state aid, these societies provided a safety net for their members in times of crisis. Another example is the Amish community's covenant community, which operates a system of mutual aid and charity that helps members with medical expenses, funeral costs, and other expenses related to family crises. This system is based on a sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the community, rather than state intervention. Moreover, private insurance agencies are another example of how voluntary arrangements can operate efficiently and effectively. These agencies are subject to market forces and must compete with other providers, driving them to offer better services at lower prices. Private fire departments also provide a compelling example of how voluntary arrangements can work. In the early days of the United States, private fire departments were prevalent, and they competed with each other to provide better services to their clients. By examining these examples, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of how voluntary arrangements can provide efficient and effective aid and relief solutions than state-imposed beuracracy. These organizations are freestanding examples of distress relief that can operate independently and successfully without state intervention. As a result, voluntary arrangements can be a reliable and effective alternative to government aid.

The practicality of voluntary arrangements is undeniable. While government intervention can be sluggish and bureaucratic, leading to frustrating delays in relief efforts, voluntary arrangements are often more nimble and flexible, able to rapidly respond to the needs of those affected by disasters. And what's more, voluntary arrangements have the advantage of being based on consent, not force. People are free to choose whether or not to participate, and can opt out at any time. It's a level of freedom that state-imposed solutions simply can't match.

But the benefits of voluntary arrangements don't stop there. They're also incredibly cost-effective compared to state alternatives. Government intervention often comes with a hefty price tag, one that taxpayers are all too familiar with. In contrast, voluntary arrangements often provide relief and aid at a fraction of the cost. The principle of mutual aid means that members pool their resources to help each other, achieving more together than they could alone. It's a powerful approach that simply can't be replicated by state-imposed solutions. So not only are voluntary arrangements more moral, but they're also more practical and cost-effective.

Voluntary arrangements offer a superior alternative to state-imposed solutions for providing relief and aid during times of distress and disaster. Rather than relying on coercion and violating individual freedom, voluntary arrangements align with these principles, allowing individuals to choose how they want to contribute to relief efforts. Incentives for efficient and effective operation abound in a free market, and mutual aid societies and covenant communities offer a sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the community. Voluntary arrangements are also more nimble and flexible than government intervention and often provide relief and aid at a fraction of the cost. Understanding the benefits of private assistance can lead to more effective ways to help those in need. Therefore, it is crucial to consider voluntary arrangements as a reliable and practical solution to distress and disaster. As a people we should all work together to support the power of the free market and individual choice by exploring and participating in voluntary arrangements that can effectively alleviate distress and support those in need.