At one time in America, faith, family, and community were the foundation of support when people fell on hard times. Churches, neighbors, and charities stepped up to help those in need. But over time, that responsibility shifted. Today, many look to the government as the first and primary solution to personal and societal problems. What was once voluntary charity has become institutionalized assistance, and in the process, we’ve created a system of dependency that few can imagine living without.
The problem? Once government takes over a role, it rarely gives it back. And now we find ourselves in a Catch-22—government can’t just stop doing what it’s doing without creating massive hardship, yet the longer this system continues, the harder it becomes to undo. The truth is, this won’t be fixed in my lifetime, my children’s, or possibly even my grandchildren’s. That’s why so few people even consider what an alternative might look like—it seems too far gone, too big to change.
And yet, deep down, most people know government was never meant to be their source.
The Catch-22 of Government Dependency
Here’s the dilemma:
1. Government wasn’t always in this role. There was a time when communities took care of their own. Needs were met locally, not through bureaucracies.
2. Now, too many people depend on government help. Whether by necessity or design, the system has made government the go-to solution for everything from poverty to education to healthcare.
3. Government can’t just stop. Even if everyone agreed government overreach is a problem, cutting off assistance overnight would create chaos.
4. Politics won’t embrace change. No politician gets elected by telling people they need to rely less on government. If anything, the trend is toward expanding government’s role, not reducing it.
It’s a system that feeds itself. And the longer it runs, the harder it is for people to imagine life any other way.
Are There Necessary Exceptions?
Yes, there are cases where government assistance is needed. Some people simply cannot help themselves—whether due to disability, severe illness, or extreme hardship. As a society, we have a moral responsibility to care for those who truly cannot care for themselves. But even in these cases, the government should not be the provider—it should be the overseer. Social programs should be administered through the private sector, including faith-based and non-profit organizations, with government ensuring fairness and accountability.
This keeps assistance personal, local, and adaptable while avoiding the inefficiency and waste that often comes with bureaucracy. Government’s role should be protection, not provision—making sure those in need are helped but not making people dependent on an impersonal system that removes individual responsibility.
What About Social Security & Medicare?
Programs like Social Security and Medicare are different from other government assistance programs. They were designed as earned benefits, meaning people paid into them with the expectation of receiving benefits later in life. They are not the same as welfare, though their sustainability is now in question.
The reality is, Social Security and Medicare must be reformed to ensure they remain available for future generations. But that reform must not come at the expense of those who currently depend on them. People who have worked their entire lives with the promise of these benefits should not suffer due to poor management or political games.
Possible solutions include:
• Adjusting qualifications to ensure benefits go to those who need them most
• Raising age requirements gradually for future generations while protecting current recipients
• Cutting government waste and increasing efficiency to extend the longevity of these programs
If handled wisely, these programs can continue serving their intended purpose without becoming a financial burden that drags the country further into debt. But ignoring the problem will only lead to eventual collapse—one that will hurt the very people these programs were meant to protect.
The Real Benefit of Change: Lower Taxes
If people took back responsibility for themselves and their communities, the need for excessive government programs would shrink. With less government spending, taxes could be drastically reduced or even eliminated in some areas. Imagine a world where people kept more of what they earned, where charity and local organizations provided assistance efficiently without government waste, and where individuals had the freedom to build wealth without the government taking a massive cut.
Right now, a significant portion of tax dollars goes toward funding massive bureaucracies, many of which are inefficient, redundant, or outright wasteful. If government’s role was limited to protecting freedoms and other basic social programs rather than trying to be the provider of all things, the tax burden would shrink dramatically.
This isn’t a fantasy—it’s how things used to work. Before the rise of the welfare state, people had fewer taxes, stronger communities, and a greater sense of responsibility. The argument that “we need high taxes to help people” falls apart when you realize how much waste exists in government programs. If communities and charities took on these roles, we could help those in need without forcing people to give through taxation.
Could a Great Awakening Change Things?
History shows that people don’t change unless something forces them to. A shift away from government dependency won’t happen through political debates, economic policies, or even financial crises—it will require a change in people’s hearts. Something massive. Something spiritual.
Maybe, just maybe, God will intervene—not through a political movement or a policy change, but through a revival in the hearts of His people. If enough people decide to live differently, to recognize Him as their source rather than government, the shift could begin.
Imagine if churches once again became the primary places of refuge for the poor and struggling. If families reclaimed the responsibility for raising and educating their children with biblical truth. If believers demonstrated faith in action—not just words—by taking care of each other as Scripture commands. It wouldn’t be forced by law but chosen by conviction.
And if that happened? The impact would be freedom—financially, spiritually, and personally. Less government, fewer taxes, and stronger families. It wouldn’t be easy, but it would be worth it.
So Where Do We Go from Here?
For many, this is just a thought experiment. It’s an idea people nod their heads at but don’t believe can actually happen. And maybe they’re right—maybe this is just the way things are now.
For now, it starts with individuals who choose to live differently. People who refuse to put their faith in government and instead build their lives on something greater. If that happens, if enough people make that choice, the world might just change—not because of what government does, but because of what God’s people decide to do.
And in the process, we could reclaim not just our faith, but our freedom.
The question is: Are there enough people left who still believe that’s possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment