Americans have a history of being very generous with their time and money when they see people in need, but those ties of kindness have been fraying for many years. Since it is now widely seen as a function of government to take care of the needy, why get involved yourself? Moreover, government now actually gets in the way of charitable efforts. That was the case recently in Dayton, Ohio, where a man was arrested because he persisted in giving food to poor people.

Austin Raynor of Pacific Legal Foundation writes about that case in this Law & Liberty article:

There are many explanations for why Dayton might criminalize charity. Safetyism is one. Because something could go wrong — a beneficiary might get an upset stomach from a suspicious burrito — oversight is necessary. As Dayton’s mayor unselfconsciously put it, “You just can’t have people running around in public spaces like that, just giving stuff without having any sets of rules.” A more cynical explanation is that the town wants to suppress public attention on its homelessness problem.

No, there don’t have to be rules, but to many of our political leaders these days, letting people peacefully act as they choose is unthinkable.

Raynor gets at the root of the problem here: “The political incentives to supplant private charity with government welfare are clear. When people are beholden to benefits provided by the government, they are beholden to the politicians and bureaucrats responsible for those benefits. Dependency is a political asset.”

Exactly.