“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority”

Lord Action

Buried in the line item detail of most town and city budgets, as well as the basis of any number of seemingly obscure warrant articles, are public funding obligations for a wide variety of charitable and social service organizations.  Almost without exception, these appropriations are overwhelmingly approved by enthusiastic, well-intended majorities.

Advocates of these expenditures vigorously defend this governmental largess by quoting statistics on how many of the community’s citizens have been assisted by the mental health, rape crisis intervention, hospice or counseling services for which funds are being requested. 

Predictably, there is an analysis indicating that the appropriation being sought will only add a few cents onto the tax rate, followed by the inevitable justification that, “we’ve always done it”.  Those questioning such expenditures are generally painted as insensitive boors.  Typically, they also dismiss any discussion of encroachments on the rights of others. 

In reality, however, these champions of governmental paternalism demonstrate a ignorance of, if not a contempt for a fundamental principle on which our government was founded.  While the premises of majority rule is essential in a democratic society, it has always been tempered with the safeguard that at no time should the will of the majority be permitted to infringe on the rights of minorities. 

Governments in free societies have always been established to undertake only those uniquely broad responsibilities which it is reasonable to believe individuals can not accomplish alone.  National defense, foreign policy, law enforcement and the establishment of a national currency system were among the earliest and most obvious examples of such activities post-revolutionary America. 

During the last century public education was added to this list.  Since the “New Deal”, social activists have forged an agenda built around the notion only a larger more pervasive government could solve the nation’s social and economic ills.  Their ultimate folly was best articulated by former seminarian and social activist, Michael Novak, “The great myth of the 20th century was for progressive people to image that the state was the engine of their hopes.”

Few, including even the most ardent opposition to such expenditures, argue the services provided by each of the private organizations whose funding requests are put before local voters do not benefit the citizens of their community, often in a significant manner.  Nor are they particularly concerned with the negligible impact on their tax rate.

Rather, they subscribe to the radical notion each citizen must be free to make his/her own decisions as to how their charitable contributions will be directed.  They do resent an abrogation of their liberties and freedom of choice. 

These critics do not believe anyone should be forced to contribute even a single penny to any private organization for any reason, however, worthwhile its cause may be.  The present gun-to-the-head approach … either donate thought your property tax or the town will hold your property hostage is repugnant to our American way of life. 

Admittedly, perhaps tragically, some extremely worthwhile charitable and social service organizations will not survive.  However, the same can be said of all private institutions in a democratic, free-market system. 

Town meeting voters, selectmen and other locally elected officials, however passionately they support certain social causes, must first respect the rights of their fellow citizens.  If not, they may one day find other private organizations whose values and social goals might be abhorrent to them demanding equal treatment … and eventually extorting their tax dollars in a similar manner.

True advocates of private social service agencies and charitable organizations should eschew public financing and renew their personal commitments … serving as a volunteer, assisting in private fund raising activities and making whatever size donations their own consciences dictate and circumstances permit.

They must not utilize local taxing authorities to effectively confiscate monies from unwilling donors whose priorities may differ from theirs.