At Whose Expense?

by Philip Smith

A question often overlooked in public policy debates is deceptively simple: "At whose expense?" Let us reflect for a moment on this question and see if, by answering it, we can clarify some current issues.

Take, for example, child care benefits. When described by child care advocates, the issue seems rather innocuous. "Shouldn't working mothers," they ask, "have a right to adequate child care at reasonable cost?" The answer to such a question would seem to be yes, since parents have a right to seek adequate child care wherever and at whatever cost they choose.

But child care advocates often go a step farther. They maintain that a parent's right to seek child care somehow places a burden on a second party to provide it. This second party is usually thought to be the parent's employer, or perhaps the taxpayers. This second party then, is the answer to the question, "At whose expense?" Immediately another question then comes to mind -- why?

Why should an employer be forced to provide child care? Employers, like parents, are people too -- and they have a primary right to do as they choose with their own earnings and property. This includes the right to decide whether to offer employee child care. This is truly an "inalienable" right, and takes precedence over other so-called "rights," such as the parent's "right" to child care at the expense of an unwilling second party.

Likewise, imposing the financial burden on the taxpayers still amounts to forcing the individual taxpayer to purchase child care for someone else. Why should you be forced to pay for my child's care?

The same reasoning applies to catastrophic health care for the elderly. We might agree that this is a noble and desirable thing -- but again we must ask the question: "At whose expense?" As with child care, we find that the burden of financing catastrophic health care is to be placed on an unwilling second party -- taxpayers.

Consider someone who has purchased health insurance for himself and his family. By what right should he be forced to also buy health care for strangers? The answer, of course, is that no one has the right to demand this of him.

Consider also the plight of the homeless. It is a sad but unchanging fact that some people cannot and will not be able to afford a home. Some concerned citizens think the solution is to build housing for the homeless, and perhaps provide food and social services. But once again the question arises: "At whose expense?"

The usual answer is the government. But who pays the government's bills? Clearly you and I do, through taxes taken from us by force. It is the individual taxpayer who finances any such "charity." Advocates of such programs believe themselves empowered to force us to give to their cause, not by persuading us, but by threat of imprisonment under the tax laws.

On the other hand, America's thousands of private, voluntary charities work on just the opposite principle. These organizations, unlike the government, are limited to peaceful means of persuasion. They cannot take from us by force; they must convince us that their cause is worthy and their goals are in line with our own. When we ask of their work, "At whose expense?" the answer is: willing donors.

A distinction, then, becomes clear. With the help of the handy question, "At whose expense?" we quickly skip to the core of matters which otherwise might seem a confusing mix of merits and drawbacks.

The answer to the question will be either willing buyers or unwilling victims. In the first case, those who benefit from a good or service are those who pay for it, or for whom a charity has paid the bill; in the second case an agent, usually government, is employed to rob from some to provide for others in the name of "justice" or "compassion." But America was founded on the principle that ends don't justify means. Justice and compassion are never served by violating the rights of free human beings, even for the noblest causes.