Jenck's criticisms do apply to Olasky's arguments concerning the need for personal and local involvement in charity and aiding the poor, though to a lesser degree. Olasky argues in the Tragedy of American Compassion that welfare and other social programs perpetuate poverty because they do not demand any self-help from the recipients, which is similar to Murray's argument that the benefits for remaining poor in a welfare state outweigh the benefits of employment (Olasky 1992; Murray 1984). While it might be true that personal and local involvement are preferable to federal social programs, Jenck's assertion of the inherent imbalance in today's society also implies an imbalance in the degree and amount of support that could and would be offered in certain communities (Jenck 1993). That is, in communities already mostly or entirely reduced to poverty, there...
A federal system allows for the redistribution of resources across broader areas and populations, and though this leads to the depersonalization of aid that Olasky decries, it is arguably the only solution for lifting entire segments of the population out of poverty.
Though Jenck might be a little presumptuous in the strength of his assertion, there is some merit to the points he raises. A completely ands-off system such as that advocated by both Murray and Olasky assumes a generally balanced society, and even a cursory examination of demographics relating to poverty does not support this assumption. There is an obvious imbalance in today's society, and though the current welfare system might not provide an adequate solution to poverty for many, neither would an entirely laissez-faire…
