As the United States steadily succumbs to omnipotent government, it is important to look back at our early history to see how much Americans accomplished when they were free to use their time, talents, and property to solve the problems they faced. Many people today are habituated to turning to government for laws and programs to deal with almost every problem. That was not the case in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In those days, people formed voluntary associations to deal with such needs as care for the indigent, schooling, firefighting, libraries, fighting to abolish slavery, and much more.
A new book — Liberty Lost: The Rise and Demise of Voluntary Association in America Since Its Founding — by Robert E. Wright, who is a lecturer of economics at Central Michigan University, tells the story of America’s early success under very limited, noninterventionist government. The people, he writes, “saw themselves as taking individual responsibility for socioeconomic problem alleviation. This often meant joining with like-minded people in pursuit of a goal. No fostering of solidarity was needed, just the same voluntary cooperation that took place in other markets.”
The French author Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed in his Democracy in America that our country was “a nation of joiners.” With a great depth of research, Wright shows just how correct he was. Animated by the spirit of liberty, Americans were indefatigable in their efforts to improve society (and themselves) without turning to coercion. This gave rise to what Wright calls the Third Sector — the huge network of associations, societies, clubs, and other voluntary organizations. This sector, Wright observes, “saved the United States from extremism by channeling people’s energy into voluntary associations.” Exactly. Americans were too busy working to improve themselves and others through peaceful means to entertain ideas about transforming the country through radical, authoritarian measures.
What problems did Americans handle through the Third Sector?
One was relief for those who found themselves destitute. Dutch settlers established church-run almshouses in the 1650s, and English colonists did the same in Boston and Philadelphia. Aid was given to the deserving poor only — these charities discriminated against the poor who were merely lazy or prone to excessive drinking. Also, they often tried to place the needy in jobs. Americans understood that any guarantee of welfare would merely breed dependence and “demoralize succeeding generations.”
Another was care for orphans. We learn that the first orphanage was established in Savannah, Georgia, in 1740.
Education was all voluntary and many churches created free schools for those too poor to pay. Schools were established for the deaf and the blind.
It might surprise modern Americans to discover that despite the absence of any compulsory schooling, literacy in early America was very high. People read widely and established libraries in towns and cities. For a small fee, individuals could become members and take out books.
Another problem people faced was fighting fires. Rather than having government set up firefighting companies, however, their solution was to create volunteer firefighting companies.
Societies were established to help immigrants obtain housing and work, as many Americans were glad to help “the industrious stranger.”
Lyceums popped up across the country — organizations devoted to intellectual improvement by bringing in expert speakers and sponsoring debates.
Those who envisioned social reforms organized associations to oppose slavery and the unjust treatment of Indians and to end debtor prisons.
Wright makes the important point that the Third Sector was open to everyone. At a time when laws and social customs limited what women and blacks could do, nothing kept them from working in or even starting voluntary associations.
Tocqueville was right about Americans, more right than he knew. Voluntary action was a key aspect of the nation’s civic life.
Unfortunately, Wright tells us, the Third Sector is collapsing. His final chapter, “Not So Independent Anymore,” is very depressing reading. He states, “While it has grown enormously in nominal terms, America’s civil society, once a powerful pillar of democracy and pluralism, has been slowly collapsing into the other two sectors. The large number of nonprofits now signals the Third Sector’s weakness, its dependence on for-profit corporations and especially the government.”
How did this happen?
Compulsory public education bears much of the blame. Wright nails the truth: “Universal education was the panacea that would save the Republic, not destroy it, advocates argued. In the end, though, it led to the state teaching students to be statists.” And statists, of course, believe that government can and must solve every problem.
That mindset eventually came to replace the old individualist thinking of the people who ran the Third Sector organizations. By the time FDR rolled out his federal welfare programs, we had voluntary association leaders who thought that government ought to take the lead because it was really the responsibility of “society” rather than of concerned individuals to take care of the poor.
Moreover, the heads of many charitable organizations saw that partnering with big business and government would be to their personal advantage. With money gushing in from business donations and government appropriations, they could enjoy large salaries and bask in the limelight of public attention. The once independent and highly effective Third Sector has largely been reduced to a vassal of government and big business. The organizations that used to be so good at solving problems now do more to perpetuate them.
Wright’s sad ending makes one think about how different the United States would be now if we had stuck with our original concept of government limited to only a “night watchman” role and left it up to voluntary associations to deal with problem solving and the improvement of society. We would not have the huge numbers of government functionaries “working” on counterproductive welfare programs, ministering to people whose ambition to improve themselves has been sapped by endless handouts. All of those people would instead be doing something useful. We would be a much wealthier and less divided nation.
We would also be much freer. Government has only one tool, namely coercion. The modern mindset of “Government must do something” leads to heavy taxation on productive people and a countless number of regulations for everyone to obey.
Robert Wright has done the country a great service in writing a book that shows how very well we fared when the amelioration of problems and of personal improvement was left up to voluntary efforts.
This article was originally published in the October 2024 issue of Future of Freedom.