An Excellent Answer to a Common Emotional Argument

When discussing ending government entitlements, one of the most common responses is something along the lines of "but what if a member of disadvantaged group, through no fault of his own, needs currently entitled good/service and can't afford it? Would you really let said member suffer?" Intellectually, the answer to this question is the same as the reasons behind your general argument to end the entitlement: One person's need does not entail a claim on another's life. Why, then, is this question so often presented and why does it seem difficult to answer satisfactorily?

The answer is that this is primarily an emotional argument: the question is set up in such a way that leaving the person without his good or service causes an extremely negative emotional response. Who wants to leave grandma without her pills? One way to answer this argument is to point out, correctly, that emotions are not methods of cognition. But, as Dr. Hsieh points out in a post on the We Stand FIRM blog, the emotional nature of the argument suggests a perfect answer:

"[T]he very fact that such examples tug at the sympathies of normal decent Americans also means that those Americans will be forthcoming with voluntary charity. And I fully support giving to charities that are consistent with my values and priorities."

The flaw, then, in this typical counter-argument is that the questioner is assuming a false dichotomy between forced "charity" and complete self-reliance. In fact, as Dr. Hsieh so eloquently demonstrates, there is a third, appropriate alternative: voluntary charity.