Poverty

In a libertarian state, there would be no government programs for the relief of the poor. Poor people would have to rely on self-help, their families, or charity. This strikes liberals as absurd and heartless.

Would we have been better off if the government had never introduced the anti-poverty programs of the New Deal and Great Society? You might think that the answer depends on who "we" are--poverty programs might have made poor people better off and rich people worse off. Then your evaluation would depend on how you felt about this redistribution. And indeed, libertarians often feel that the poor don't deserve to get forced charity from the rich. (Ayn Rand: "Need is not a claim.")

But it would be hard to convince a liberal to oppose poverty programs on this basis. Instead we can focus on the question: Would the poor have been better off without the government's anti-poverty programs? If we could demonstrate that poverty-relief programs have in fact harmed the poor, that would be a powerful argument, that almost anyone would find convincing, in favor of abolishing government poverty relief. Some might say that it would be better still to have a GOOD anti-poverty program; but if the net effect of welfare so far, on the poor themselves, not even counting the cost to others, has been negative, that is a good argument that it is unreasonable to expect democratic politics to produce an effective welfare program. It certainly would show that the libertarian goal of abolition is not absurd or heartless.

Regarding poverty there is a libertarian bible: Charles Murray's Losing Ground (1984). Murray adopts the same strategy proposed here: "The most troubling aspect of social policy toward the poor in late twentieth-century America is not how much it costs, but what it has bought (p. 9)." Therefore the Apology will take Losing Ground as a guide for this issue.

We seem to have set libertarianism a very difficult goal. After all, how can it make people worse off to give them money? Before we try to answer that question, let's look at Murray's main evidence that the government has made people worse off by giving them money.

Here's Murray's case: [S1]

year poverty rate real federal anti-poverty cash assistance (1980$)

1950 30% $3.7b

1960 22.2% $5.2b

1964 19% $6.2b

1968 12.8% $8.2b

1970 12.6% $9.5b

1973 11.1% $12.4b

1980 13% $14.3b

1983 15.2%

1989 12.8%

1990 13.5% $26b (1990$)

1992 14.8% $34b (1992$)

1993 15.1%

1995 13.8%

year	poverty rate	real federal anti-poverty cash assistance (1980$)
1950	30%	$3.7b
1960	22.2%	$5.2b
1964	19%	$6.2b
1968	12.8%	$8.2b
1970	12.6%	$9.5b
1973	11.1%	$12.4b
1980	13%	$14.3b
1983	15.2%
1989	12.8%
1990	13.5%	$26b (1990$)
1992	14.8%	$34b (1992$)
1993	15.1%
1995	13.8%

In short, the record is of excellent progress between 1950 and 1973, which then ceased and indeed somewhat reversed.

Murray's argument is: poverty decreased even when anti-poverty spending was low (the 50s). And poverty stopped decreasing around the same time as anti-poverty spending was growing rapidly (the 70s). So

Poverty can decline even without high anti-poverty spending
High anti-poverty spending can prevent poverty from declining

There's a lot more to say, but these numbers by themselves are enough to show that the libertarian position on poverty is neither absurd nor heartless.

Return to main Apology page.

This page maintained by Steven Blatt. Suggestions, comments, questions, and corrections are welcome.

S1. Losing Ground, pp. 58, 243 (table 3), 245 (table 5). Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997, table 736 (PDF, p. 33), p. 475, from which I've calculated cash public assistance for 1990 and 1992 using Murray's method (described in notes to table 3).

Return to main Apology page.

This page maintained by Steven Blatt. Suggestions, comments, questions, and corrections are welcome.