The Art of Giving: Navigating Paths of Compassion Without Coercion
In the early days of the United States, charitable spending by the government required an explicit act of Congress. One famous moment came when frontiersman and Congressman Davy Crockett opposed a bill proposing public funds for a widow. “We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity,” he argued, “but as members of Congress, we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public’s money.” He then personally donated to the widow from his own funds.
What has changed since then?
Back then, all charity was private. People didn’t starve in the streets—communities took care of their own. In addition to donor-funded charities, mutual aid societies flourished. Members contributed voluntarily to shared funds, supporting one another in times of unexpected hardship.
Today, the idea that individuals must be sacrificed for the “common good” reflects a collectivist mindset. But you don’t need to be a radical individualist to see the value of a communitarian—rather than collectivist—approach. Individuals thrive in social settings, and communities thrive when they protect individual rights and value people for their diverse thoughts and contributions.
Seen in this light, free markets and entrepreneurship unleash far more possibilities than the coercive systems we’ve inherited. Many people may find it difficult to shift from a collectivist mentality to a more voluntary, cooperative one—but that’s where smaller jurisdictions can help.
Smaller communities, especially new jurisdictions, can operate without traditional welfare systems. In the past, religious organizations were often at the heart of charitable giving, and new cities might choose to foster religious institutions if the market demands it. Ironically, the presence of government programs often stifles religious and community engagement, whereas in the absence of government interference, such institutions may flourish.
When people are not forced to fight over who receives “free” services from the state, they are more willing to cooperate and help one another. In communities where residents voluntarily accept shared rules and values, informal or formal mutual support becomes far more feasible.
Mutual aid societies are one proven method to address income disruption. A natural leader might organize a local society, or associations formed around other interests might expand into mutual aid if they see value in it.
Insurance is another important tool. In the U.S., the insurance industry’s reputation has been damaged by overregulation. But in freer jurisdictions, entrepreneurs could develop innovative and flexible insurance products, tailored to actual needs.
Take health insurance. Without regulatory barriers, healthy young people could buy inexpensive plans that cover only rare, severe issues. Older or chronically ill people might pay more—but in a more flexible market, others could step in to help them afford it.
Liability insurance could also be handled more efficiently, much like bonds are used by some companies for high-trust roles. With sound actuarial models and flexible pricing, countless needs could be met without government mandates or one-size-fits-all rules.
The point is this: when bureaucrats with no skin in the game codify policies, they tend to produce inefficiency and resentment. But in voluntary systems, households, neighborhoods, and communities can create their own common-sense solutions.
Charitable organizations, in turn, could try different approaches, learn from what works, and change course without asking permission from a regulatory agency. The most effective models would be copied. The worst would fade away. People would have choices—and those choices would make sense to them.
Decentralization allows charity to be personal, case-specific, and human. It empowers real people to make real judgments based on what others actually want and need. It also discourages abuse—because if a village drunk seeks a handout, no one is forced to support his bad habits.
Smaller jurisdictions also make better decisions because they are closer to the people they serve. They can pilot ideas that would be unworkable at scale. When successful, those small innovations can grow and be replicated elsewhere.
In short, charity works best not when it is mandated from above, but when it arises from below—freely given, wisely administered, and grounded in compassion rather than control.