Am I my brothers keeper

This week is the Ohio primary. Of course the Republican nomination is not really in doubt. That makes the Democratic primary much more interesting even though I am not voting in it. Both Senators have spent a great deal of money on advertising (much to my chagrin while I watch M*A*S*H* reruns). One of the ads that Barak Obama is playing a lot is that his quest is because he believes we are our brothers' keeper. I actually agree with him. Now comes the $64,000 question: How best do we accomplish this?

This question has been answered since people started studying economics. Is the private sector or the private sector better equipped to help. Of course markets do not attempt to perform justice. The market only sets a price. Men and women provide the good or bad. Handing over control to the government for any one action does not eliminate the market for a good or service, it only becomes a player (unless it is nationalized of course).

My question is this: are people better helped by a growing economy, or a government handout? I believe a growing economy. Are people better able to increase their standard of living using government assistance or getting an education and working through the private sector? I believe the private sector. Are people better served by a government health care system or by working to get insurance in the private sector? This one is the gray area to some. Every time we see a government health care plan, services are rationed in time. This has never not happened.

What Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are promising in essence is security. You can depend on a subsistence living if something bad happens. Freedom must be taken away to make that happen. You must take the money to pay for that security. The individuals and corporations that pay the most cannot use that money to start businesses, to expand businesses, to invest in start ups, to purchase big ticket items that put workers to work. It of course doesn't stop with the rich. Middle class and poor are also affected. The more money that is taken away is the less money that can be saved for their kids college, for a newer more dependable car which would help the auto industry, to get their kids better clothes. Someones freedom has to be interrupted to deliver that security.

If while taking freedom away it could be measured that the programs work, you could still make an argument for these programs, but since the track record of government interventions is abysmal how can we continue to make this argument? I just can't fathom. All that considered, what is the best way to help my brother in need? I say get the government out of security. I can make a case for helping people who truly can't help themselves, the disabled, the mentally ill, the terminally ill. I cannot imagine a good case for security for people down on their luck. The safety net has become a straight jacket. It just isn't compassionate. How to help those people? Charity organizations and human compassion. If we could magically take the money spent on welfare and give it to inner city charities, which would do the most good? I think the answer is obvious.