Gutmenschen-Fund

The strongest argument for socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against socialism is that it doesn’t work. But those who live by words will always have a soft spot in their hearts for socialism because it sounds so good.
Thomas Sowell

One of the most insidious ideas is using other people’s money to «do good». Socialism and communism may sound noble, but they create perverse incentives, erode personal responsibility, and ultimately undermine civilizations. Why work, show merit, take initiative, or be creative when the fruits of your labor are seized to make others feel righteous?

This doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a safety net. After all, there should be equality of opportunity. Otherwise, great minds born in bad circumstances are blighted and cannot develop their potential, which would deny the world incredible innovations. A fair system ensures that no child’s potential is crushed by poverty and that those who truly cannot fend for themselves receive basic support.

But today’s welfare states go far beyond that. Instead of helping people stand on their own, they foster dependence, punishing the productive and rewarding those who demand more without creating value. A system that rewards dependence over self-reliance cannot sustain itself indefinitely. The productive shrink back, the entitled demand more, and innovation grinds to a halt. And then? The cycle accelerates.

In part, this stems from a deeper impulse: the need to take from others, to redistribute, and — most importantly — to control who gets the money. This goes far beyond ensuring equality of opportunity. It is ostensibly aimed at equality of outcome. And that impulse to redistribute (but not create) and to accept that redistribution is deeply ingrained in people who lack the ability or willingness to achieve something on their own. It’s not charity. It’s a play for power with some moral grandstanding and virtue signaling — nothing else.

The difference is obscured because the money-grab is done indirectly, via the state and its taxes. It is ostensibly affecting «the rich», but that ignores the fact that the pressures on those with money hamper the economic agility of a country, and it prevents the middle-class from accumulating wealth. If you want to make the difference transparent, you’d only need to change one thing:

Take it out of government spending and make it a voluntary contribution — with a certificate if desired.

For example, instead of spending money on refugees beyond the bare necessities (bed, simple food and drink, basic medical services — nothing more), create a Gutmenschen-Fund (Do-gooder fund). People can voluntarily donate money to that fund. If they so desire, they can get a certificate showing the amount they contributed. If people really think the cause is righteous, let them prove it — with their own money. After all, money is truthful.

If helping the needy were truly a priority, the same people who advocate for redistribution would eagerly contribute their own money. But we all know what would happen: the vast majority wouldn’t. Because moral posturing is free — until it isn’t.

Once people have to actually pay their own money, all that talk about helping the needy would vanish into thin air. It’s a bit like the story of the priest who built a church in a small mountain village. The villagers wanted to throw a festival for the priest to thank him and put out a large barrel with a small opening. Every villager was supposed to pour a liter of wine into the barrel so there would be something to drink during the festival.

When the festival came and the barrel was opened, it contained only water. Each villager had poured in water, thinking the others had put in wine and that his own cheating would not be noticed. A classic illustration of the tragedy of the commons.

The Gutmenschen-Fund would expose this reality. Like the villagers with their wine barrel, most would talk big about generosity — until it required real sacrifice. The moment giving became voluntary, the Gutmenschen would vanish — and all that righteous talk? Nothing but water in an empty barrel.