any constitutional objection.The problems in setting up a welfare system are similar to the problems of running the actual program. These problems include the two previous questions—“Who gets assistance?” and “How much do they receive?”—and another one; “Who is going to figure out the answers to the first questions and apply those answers to the benefit of the poor?”. Therefore, the problem in organizing a welfare system comes down to the question of the government’s role in welfare.With all of the improvements in the standard of living that have been brought about by changes in welfare, social security, and other government programs, it would seem ludicrous to suggest that government should completely back out of the welfare system and leave that to private institutions. Because the improvement of the poor person’s lot producing positive externalities such as increased productivity and lower crime rates, the private sector would under-produce these services. Clearly, the government needs to have some role in administering welfare. Oddly enough, the solution to the problem of poverty may be found in our past. Government at the national level is unable to provide for the good of every poor person in an economically and practically efficient manor, but individual people and smaller local organizations can. If the government subsidizes groups who help the poor, it would be less costly than creating and administering its own programs, and also more effective. By creating awareness in the public consciousness about the problem of poverty, and offering economic incentives to individuals and groups who are willing to help out, the government can facilitate the improvement of the standard of living of poor people in an effective, efficient, and cheap way.The phenomenon of private replacement of government service has already been observed in some parts of the country as a re...
