It occurs to me that it's been a while since I discussed alternative strategies for freedom; and with the Barr nomination there might now be more of an audience. This strategy is a bit more "roundabout" than most. How does charity build freedom?

When I broke with the LP in 1981 -- a long story -- I began attending supper clubs and talks and reading publications by "non-party" libertarians. One theme that came up repeatedly was the need for alternatives to government. The late Ken Gregg sparked an epiphany for me at one supper club when he said it this way: there is a market demand for government. Or, to be more precise, there is a demand for the things that government provides. And if we could push a button that would wipe government off the face of the earth today, tomorrow the people would go about creating a new government, because they want the things that they see government providing, and only see government as the way to get them.

Well, anyone who has been exposed to Austrian economics knows that people act to fulfill their desires. So we, as libertarians, have two alternatives: (a) convince people to change their desires (i.e., change human nature), or (b) convince people that they can fulfill those desires without the use of government. I think the latter is a more fruitful approach.

One of the desires that people have is for help when they're down and out. (How often do you hear people say that libertarians are "heartless" or ask "what about the poor?") I don't mean cradle-to-grave welfare; yes, there are some who desire that, but I think what most people want is a "safety net" that will keep them and their family from starving or being evicted in the event of a personal catastrophe. Long ago this help was provided by family and social organizations, but over the years, the government has insidiously taken over this role with its own programs.

Our opportunity lies in the fact that the government is so incredibly bad at the job.

This is why we donate to our local food bank. Being a local program, we can see how good a job it does, and we might even know the people it helps. Being run by volunteers instead of paid bureaucrats, its overhead is low. And dealing in food rather than money, most of the aid goes to the intended recipients, and they use the aid for its intended purpose.

It's no surprise to me that every year, I hear some government flunky railing about how awful it is that people are "dependent on food banks," and how this shows that the government welfare system is too small, and how they need more funding so we won't need food banks at all. Their helping-the-poor empire is at risk from this rabble of volunteers! I take the opposite view: I hope each year for the food bank program to expand, because I know that they're feeding people instead of paying bureaucrats hefty salaries to push paper...and they're making the bureaucrats look bad.

And more to the point, the recipients are learning a valuable lesson: you get better help from someone who isn't the government.