Most folks care about their less fortunate neighbors. Americans have long formed voluntary associations and civic groups to address such problems. Habitat for Humanity and the Salvation Army are two successful examples. But since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, which harnessed government to cure social problems, the federal government has claimed the dominant role in addressing society’s ills.

But such government intervention is fraught with risk. As Alexis de Tocqueville explained 160 years ago: “The more [government] stands in the place of [voluntary] associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance.” The more the government provides social services, the more individuals and communities are relieved of the responsibility and incentive to help their least fortunate members. A strong welfare state replaces concerned neighbors with bureaucrats.

We can learn from Europe. The continent’s largest economies, Germany and France, stagger under the dead weight of bloated bureaucracies. Over the past 20 years, Germany, the model welfare state, has averaged 7.4 percent unemployment. (It’s currently over 10 percent.) France has hovered around 10 percent. The EU as a whole averaged 9 percent for the last decade. In contrast, the U.S. experienced an average 6.2 percent unemployment rate from 1982 to 2002, 5.4 percent for the last decade.

Labor force participation rates, the proportion of the available working-age population that wants to work, show similar disparities. France and Germany averaged about 56 percent participation over the last 20 years, while the U.S. saw two-thirds of its eligible workers employed or looking for work. With Europe’s generous government benefits, going on the dole often beats working for a living. The high income taxes needed to finance such generosity further diminish the incentive to work.

Eroding the work ethic is not the only risk. When government is the arbiter of “social justice,” social goals are decided politically, not by individuals wanting to help their fellow humans. The result is any number of politicians’ and interest groups’ pet issues (e.g., dance instruction, sex education, bike clubs, or political advocacy) receiving taxpayer funding as “public service.”

Even government grants to established nonprofit groups are dangerous. To follow the strings attached to government funds, charities may have to use a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach that hinders local decision-making and ignores local needs. They also devote significant resources to complying with government regulations. These funds don’t help those in need. And government grant seekers often tailor programs to political fads. Winning funds trumps addressing real problems. This we expect when politicians decide which organizations to support.

The historian Lord Acton wrote: “The remedy for poverty is not in the material resources of the rich, but in the moral resources of the poor. These, which are lulled and deadened by money-gifts, can be raised and strengthened only by personal influence, sympathy, charity. Money gifts save the poor man who gets them, but give longer life to pauperism in the country.”

Government excels at handing out money gifts. But official promotion of “moral resources” is probably futile and certainly subject to the political whims and the ideologies of those in power. Governments can enforce obedience, but fare poorly when instilling values. The encouragement of responsibility, thrift, and hard work is better left to family, church, and charities.

Social problems are often time- and place-specific. Solutions are individual. When the government taxes citizens to provide social services, it moves decisions of who and how to help out of the community and into the political arena. But politicians and bureaucrats lack the local knowledge to make effective decisions. Nor have they the flexibility to adapt to feedback and changing conditions.

Let’s foster Americans’ entrepreneurial spirit and affinity for voluntary associations to address social problems. Eagle Mount, the Gallatin Valley Food Bank, Prevent Child Abuse, and Habitat for Humanity are a few examples in our community. Responsible people want to do good deeds, to make the world a better place. Social entrepreneurs see problems in their communities or elsewhere in the world, then organize and mobilize resources to address them. Such entrepreneurs can be much more effective, responsive, and efficient with limited resources, than distant politicians and bureaucrats.