Freedom.  It's a word that brings strong feelings of patriotism to the hearts of many Americans.  But freedom is more than a feeling, more than a simple word that indicates the ability to do what one wants.  The one thing about freedom that too many Americans either take for granted or simply do not understand is that nothing, even freedom itself, is free.
     When we hear on the news about freedom, and hear politicians and other conservative figures say freedom isn't free, they are usually saying this in a military sense.  To maintain freedom, we must fight for and defend what is ours.  That is what I call the visible price of freedom.  But there is also what I call the invisible price of freedom:  responsibility.
     Democracy is a great thing, but to maintain democracy, the populace must be responsible.  America was founded on principles of personal freedom, but also personal responsibility.  That is what made America great.  And without responsibility, there is no freedom.  When the far left espouses the "ideals" of "social justice", they are making the American populace lazy bums, whether intentionally or unintentionally.  Instead of being a short term thing until people get back on their feet, social welfare programs have drafted recipient after recipient and fostered a mentality of "I deserve this", regardless of who has to pay for it.  I'm sorry, but if you're sitting around smoking cigarettes and boozing up, you don't "deserve" anything, regardless of what politicians who want elected may try to tell you.  Responsibility goes a long way, and it is the only way that anyone can achieve true greatness.  Alex Toqueville said this: "America is great because America is good.  If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."  Sitting back and letting others work for your living, whatever others tell you, isn't good.  Be responsible, and let America be great again.

Over the past century, our government has been steadily taking more active roles in the lives of everyday Americans at the expense of our freedom.  The Federal government has established a tapered “tax the wealthy” income tax system that has lead to numerous recessions and put many small businesses out of work because they could not keep up with the numerous financial demands of the ever increasing bureaucracy.  I know from personal experience, as do a lot of people, how much money has been taken from me by the federal government in support of its massive welfare system.  If you have ever had a job and taken a look at your gross pay, and then compared it to your net pay after taxes, you will see what I am trying to say.  While social welfare might seem like a charitable option at first, it holds people down to a poverty level and deadens the inventiveness and personal responsibility that made our country great.
BusinessDictionary.com defines redistribution of wealth as such:
“Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits.”  On the outside, this doesn’t sound like a bad idea, does it?  After all, why shouldn’t those with more pay more in taxes?  That’s only natural, right?  Why is redistribution of wealth a bad idea?  Well, in my opinion, and the opinion of many leading economists, it’s a bad idea, and I’ll explain why.
      For one, redistribution of wealth hurts private charities.  K. Mulligan cited studies conducted from 1960-1990 in his essay “Economics of Philanthropy” that those with larger incomes were more likely to give to charity than those with lower incomes.  This only seems natural, because those with larger incomes have more expendable income.
      If you’ll think about this for a moment, you’ll realize that the high progressive income taxes required to support the massive welfare system are a detriment to private charities because they cut down on the expendable income of those with slightly higher incomes.  Donations then decline because fewer people are giving, or those who are giving will give less.
     The government is also notorious for its inefficient use and misuse of taxpayer money.  Curtis Neslon, a reporter for the New York Times, reported that the tendency in welfare was the reduction of cash benefits in favor of so-called “non-cash assistance.”  This “non-cash assistance” was devoted to government programs paying for daycare, housing, education, and the like.  This further cuts down on people’s sense of responsibility, encouraging them to become completely dependent on the government for all their needs, even raising their kids.
     The welfare system that embodies the ideals that the government is responsible for taking care of the basic needs of individuals and that we have the so-called “freedom from want” that Franklin Roosevelt spoke about, but it only serves to hold people down to just above the poverty level and deadens their initiative and sense of personal responsibility that made our country great.
      Walter Williams, a conservative African-American economist, proposed this scenario:
“Consider two options for a homeless family. A church or some other non-governmental entity might offer a homeless family shelter in return for the family's performance of chores such as cleaning the kitchen, mowing the lawn and washing windows. By contrast, a shelter financed by the government might provide that family shelter with no such obligation. The natural tendency for many homeless families would be to opt for the shelter where they have no obligation to give back. The Gresham's Law feature of this is the displacement of charity from the local and private level to the state, where all too often the state is unwilling or unable to distinguish between deserving and undeserving need.”
He went on to say that the vision of welfare “says marriage and fatherhood can be replaced by a welfare check.”
Like all arguments, however, there needs to be an alternative.  If welfare won’t work, what other options do we have?
     First, the government needs to let people keep the money they earn.  No economy can survive long when people have no initiative to work.  Soviet Russia proved that.
     Secondly, the government can encourage private individuals to donate to charity by allowing them to take it completely off of their income taxes.  By this, I mean that if you donate 1000 dollars, you pay 1000 dollars less in income taxes.  This would be more beneficial than merely taking it off on your taxable income.  Since a large portion of government money is going to social welfare anyway, this would allow the money to actually be put to good use.
     Thirdly, the government should keep private charities completely tax exempt.  There is a trend in government to only make charities tax exempt up to a particular amount.  This would adversely affect donations and the amount of help they would be able to provide people in need.
     I am a Christian and believe that as a Christian we should be compassionate and willing to help others just as Jesus was, but the role of compassionate giver was never designated to government.  We must realize that all men have a sin nature, and greed is the desire of many hearts.  In our sinfulness, we all to some extent desire to get something for nothing.  The current government welfare system exploits our sinful natures, and offers us the tempting treat of being paid without having to work.  But in the end, the seeming compassion and kindness of the federal government will be at the expense of our liberty.  But by then, it will be too late.  Our founding fathers realized this aspect of human nature, but their wisdom has been twisted and misused by those who only desire power.
As Patrick Henry said, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!”  I join him in his cry.  Let us bring freedom and true responsibility back to the government.