E### Essay Introduction

In "Morals and the Welfare State," F. A. Harper subjects the concept of the Welfare State to a rigorous ethical examination. He posits that economics and morals are inseparable parts of a single body of truth and must therefore be in harmony. Using five fundamental moral postulates derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition—including the Golden Rule and the Decalogue—Harper tests the validity of the Welfare State. He argues that the compulsory redistribution of wealth violates the moral prohibitions against theft and covetousness, undermining individual responsibility and character. Harper concludes that good ends cannot be attained by evil means and that the Welfare State, by relying on coercion, inevitably leads to moral decay.

Morals and the Welfare State

by Henry Hazlitt

To many persons, the Welfare State has become a symbol of morality and righteousness. This makes those who favor the Welfare State appear to be the true architects of a better world; those who oppose it, immoral rascals who might be expected to rob banks, or to do most anything in defiance of ethical conduct. But is this so? Is the banner of morality, when applied to the concept of the Welfare State, one that is true or false?

Now what is the test of morality or immorality to be applied to the Welfare State idea? I should like to pose five fundamental ethical concepts, as postulates, by which to test it. They are the ethical precepts found in the true Christian religion—true to its original foundations; and they are likewise found in other religious faiths, wherever and under whatever name these other religious concepts assist persons to perceive and practice the moral truths of human conduct.*

A brief statement on the mechanisms of the Welfare State idea is appended to this discussion on page 287.

Moral Postulate No. 1

ECONOMICS AND MORALS ARE BOTH PARTS OF ONE INSEPARABLE BODY OF TRUTH. THEY MUST, THEREFORE, BE IN HARMONY WITH ONE ANOTHER. WHAT IS RIGHT MORALLY MUST ALSO BE RIGHT ECONOMICALLY.

Let us begin with the first postulate. A moral act is one that is right. But to say that an act is right is to say that it is right in every sense. We cannot say that an act is right morally but wrong economically. We cannot say that an act is right in the abstract but wrong in the concrete. We cannot say that an act is right for A but wrong for B, if A and B are both human beings and the circumstances are essentially the same. What is right must be right for all.

The Welfare State, as commonly conceived, is based on the belief that we can take from some to give to others. This is done, in the last analysis, by force; and the use of force is a moral act. It is either right or wrong. It is not a question of economics versus morals; it is a question of whether the moral act is right or wrong. But if we are to judge whether the act is right or wrong, we cannot judge it merely by the intention of those who advocate it. We must judge it by its consequences.

We are told that the intention is to help the poor, to aid the unfortunate, to provide security, to make the world a better place. But intentions are not enough. If good intentions were enough, we should never have any evil in the world. We have to ask: What will be the consequences of the act? What will happen when we take from some to give to others? What will happen to the character of those who are compelled to give? What will happen to the character of those who are encouraged to receive? What will happen to production, to incentives, to the general well-being?

In practice, whenever the Welfare State program is introduced, it tends to diminish incentives to work and to save. It tends to diminish the production of wealth. It tends to increase the number of those who live at the expense of others. It tends to foster irresponsibility, dependency, and resentment. It tends to increase bureaucracy and political power. It tends to create class antagonisms. It tends to corrupt both the giver and the receiver. It tends, in short, to undermine the moral and economic foundations of society.

If this is so, then the moral intention to do good is defeated by the actual results. And if the results are harmful, then the act is not morally right.

Moral Postulate No. 2

NO MAN HAS A RIGHT TO A “BENEFIT” THAT MUST BE PROVIDED BY TAKING FROM SOME OTHER MAN BY FORCE.

The second postulate follows. If a “right” means anything, it means a right to be free from coercion—free to act, free to speak, free to worship, free to own property, free to exchange, free to pursue one’s own happiness, so long as one does not violate the equal rights of others.

But in the modern Welfare State, “rights” are increasingly redefined to mean “claims” on other people’s property—claims to be supported, to be housed, to be educated, to be provided with medical care, to be protected from the consequences of one’s own choices. These so-called rights can be “satisfied” only by compelling other people to provide the resources. They are therefore not rights at all in the original meaning of the word. They are demands.

If A has a “right” to a benefit that must be taken from B, then B does not have a right to what he has earned. The “right” of A becomes the negation of the right of B. This is a contradiction. A true right cannot exist at the expense of another person’s equal right.

Moral Postulate No. 3

IT IS IMMORAL TO DO INDIRECTLY—THROUGH GOVERNMENT—WHAT WOULD BE IMMORAL TO DO DIRECTLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Most people recognize that it would be wrong for a private individual to seize the property of another, even if he intended to give it to someone poorer. They recognize that robbery does not become moral merely because it is done with a benevolent motive.

Yet when the same act is done through government, under the name of taxation or redistribution, many people suddenly regard it as moral. But the moral character of an act does not change because we do it through an agency. If it would be wrong for me to take my neighbor’s property by force, it is also wrong for me to vote to have the government do it for me.

When we say, “Let the government do it,” we are not escaping moral responsibility; we are merely disguising it. The government is not an independent being with a separate moral status. It is an agent. It acts only through individuals. If an act is immoral for an individual, it is immoral for an individual acting as a government official.

Moral Postulate No. 4

CHARITY IS A VIRTUE ONLY WHEN IT IS VOLUNTARY. COMPULSORY “CHARITY” IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

One of the great confusions of our time is the tendency to call government redistribution “charity.” Charity is a personal virtue. It involves compassion, sacrifice, and voluntary giving. It is an act of the will.

When we compel charity through taxation, the moral element is removed. The person compelled to give is not exercising virtue; he is obeying force. The person receiving is not receiving a gift; he is receiving a political entitlement. The relationship is changed from personal morality to political power.

Moreover, compulsory redistribution tends to weaken the very impulses that make voluntary charity possible. When people believe that “the government will take care of it,” they feel less personal responsibility for their neighbors. They outsource compassion. They become less generous, less engaged, less personally accountable.

Moral Postulate No. 5

THE WELFARE STATE TENDS TO DESTROY THE MORAL CHARACTER OF BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE COMMUNITY.

The final postulate is the cumulative result of the first four. The Welfare State tends to destroy the moral character of both the individual and the community by replacing responsibility with entitlement.

It discourages thrift by penalizing savings. It discourages work by subsidizing idleness. It encourages the belief that life’s hardships are always someone else’s duty to fix. It rewards political pressure groups. It increases the temptation to live at the expense of others. It corrupts government by making it the dispenser of favors. It replaces the moral law with administrative rules.

In short, it undermines the habits that make a free society possible: self-reliance, honesty, industry, mutual respect, voluntary cooperation, and personal responsibility.

If a free society is to endure, it cannot rest merely on constitutions and institutions. It must rest on the character of the people who live under them. The Welfare State, by weakening that character, ultimately threatens the foundations of liberty itself.

About the Author

Henry Hazlitt (1894–1993) was an American journalist, economist, and one of the most influential advocates of classical liberalism in the twentieth century. A prolific writer and longtime editorialist for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and Newsweek, Hazlitt became widely known for his clear and accessible explanations of free-market economics.

His most famous work, Economics in One Lesson (1946), distilled complex economic principles into straightforward reasoning centered on the importance of considering long-term consequences and unseen effects. Throughout his career, Hazlitt defended private property, limited government, sound money, and voluntary exchange as the foundations of both prosperity and moral society.

In Essays on Liberty, Hazlitt contributed “Morals and the Welfare State,” applying ethical reasoning to economic policy and arguing that liberty and morality are inseparable.

Bibliography

Hazlitt, Henry. “Morals and the Welfare State.” In Essays on Liberty, Vol. 1, 283–287. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1952.