Does promoting limited government require abandoning mitment to the poor? Ryan Messmore,whose answer is a firm “no”, argues that non-government institutions can provide personalized assistance to help individuals fix relational problems, e poverty and lead healthy lives:

Calls for limited government are often mistakenly equated with a disregard for people in need. This flawed line of reasoning assumes that poverty is primarily a material problem and that government bears the primary responsibility for solving it by increasing welfare and entitlement spending.

Yet at its root, poverty is usually plex than a simple lack of material resources. In America, poverty is often the result of a relational problem, such as fatherlessness munity breakdown. Such relational breakdowns are addressed most effectively through various civil society institutions.

People have many needs that extend beyond simple material possessions—needs that cannot be met by any single institution. Families, churches, businesses, and other forms of association play crucial roles in sustaining liberty and meeting people’s needs. Public policy in general and welfare policy in particular should respect and protect these institutions of civil society.

Thus, limited government is an important piece of a framework that benefits people in need. When government is limited to the tasks it is best-equipped and authorized to perform, it allows more effective poverty-fighting institutions to thrive. Far from being patible with a concern for poverty, an appropriately limited government is crucial to maintaining a social order that enables people to escape poverty.

Read more . . .