Gift Guide

The Samaritan's Dilemma: Should Government Help Your Neighbor? [NOOK Book]


Politics has become a synonym for all that is dirty, corrupt, dishonest, compromising, and wrong. For many people, politics seems not only remote from their daily lives but abhorrent to their personal values. Outside of the rare inspirational politician or social movement, politics is a wasteland of apathy and disinterest.

It wasn’t always this way. For Americans who came of age shortly after World War II, politics was a field of dreams. Democracy promised to cure the world’s ...

See more details below
The Samaritan's Dilemma: Should Government Help Your Neighbor?

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$14.49 price
(Save 44%)$25.95 List Price


Politics has become a synonym for all that is dirty, corrupt, dishonest, compromising, and wrong. For many people, politics seems not only remote from their daily lives but abhorrent to their personal values. Outside of the rare inspirational politician or social movement, politics is a wasteland of apathy and disinterest.

It wasn’t always this way. For Americans who came of age shortly after World War II, politics was a field of dreams. Democracy promised to cure the world’s ills. But starting in the late seventies, conservative economists promoted self-interest as the source of all good, and their view became public policy. Government’s main role was no longer to help people, but to get out of the way of personal ambition. Politics turned mean and citizens turned away.

In this moving and powerful blend of political essay and reportage, award-winning political scientist Deborah Stone argues that democracy depends on altruism, not self-interest. The merchants of self-interest have divorced us from what we know in our pores: we care about other people and go out of our way to help them. Altruism is such a robust motive that we commonly lie, cheat, steal, and break laws to do right by others. “After 3:30, you’re a private citizen,” one home health aide told Stone, explaining why she was willing to risk her job to care for a man the government wanted to cut off from Medicare.

The Samaritan’s Dilemma calls on us to restore the public sphere as a place where citizens can fulfill their moral aspirations. If government helps the neighbors, citizens will once again want to help govern. With unforgettable stories of how real people think and feel when they practice kindness, Stone shows that everyday altruism is the premier school for citizenship. Helping others shows people their common humanity and their power to make a difference.

At a time when millions of citizens ache to put the Bush and Reagan era behind us and feel proud of their government, Deborah Stone offers an enormously hopeful vision of politics.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly
Stone, a research professor and author (Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making), takes a critical look at America's shifting attitudes toward public policy over the past thirty years, during which "economists, social scientists, conservatives, and free-market ideologues have had us believing that self-interest makes the world go 'round." Her aim, to "reunite politics with doing good," challenges "the new conventional wisdom: 'Help is harmful.'" She covers well-known objections to the welfare state in her second chapter, including the ideas that help makes people dependant, entitlements undermine good citizenship, and that "markets are better helpers than government." Citing surveys, anecdotes and the work of volunteer organizations and charities, Stone pushes back against the modern myth of American self-reliance and its guiding thesis, Ayn Rand's idea that "the only rational ethical principle for human relationships... is free-market trade." Illustrating that most average Americans are not innately greedy, but rather willing partners in community action, Stone finds America's true spirit in "everyday altruism." She makes the argument that the real "moral hazard" we face, as individuals and as a nation, is not coddling the poor, but walking away from those in need.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Library Journal

The title comes from a game economist James W. Buchanan invented that divides players into "Samaritans" and "parasites," which plays a role in the argument that people who help others weaken themselves and society by diverting resources to "parasites" unmotivated to contribute to society. Author Stone (government, Dartmouth Coll.; Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making) thinks this is a myth and seeks to undermine this widespread belief among Americans who, unlike most Swedes and Canadians, who never had a revolution, think of government as a tyranny to be controlled rather than a communal activity to be fostered. A principal thrust of her argument is that, through government programs, we can help and empower the needy by enabling them to help others. Stone's writing is brisk and entertaining, but the book cries for more background. With the avalanche of profound cultural issues we face caused by mismanaged financial institutions, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, deindustrialization, and, now, rising food prices worldwide, there are likely to be a lot of people needing help. A good place, still, to start filling in the missing background is Richard L. Brinkman's Cultural Economics. Recommended where there is interest.
—Leslie Armour

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780786721702
  • Publisher: Nation Books
  • Publication date: 7/1/2008
  • Sold by: Barnes & Noble
  • Format: eBook
  • Pages: 464
  • File size: 357 KB

Meet the Author

Deborah Stone is a Research Professor of Government at Dartmouth College and a founding editor of The American Prospect. She is the author of three previous books, including Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making, which has been translated into five languages and won the Aaron Wildavsky Award from the American Political Science Association for its enduring contribution to policy studies. She has taught at M.I.T. and Brandeis University, and as a visitor at Yale, Tulane, University of Bremen, Germany, and National Chung Cheng University in Taiwan. Her essays have appeared in The Nation, The New Republic, Boston Review, Civilization, and Natural History. She has held fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and Harvard Law School, was a Phi Beta Kappa Society Visiting Scholar, and is now a Senior Fellow of Demos.
Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Chapter 1


A few years ago, at the tail end of a harsh New Hampshire winter, our local mewspaper carried a story headlined, “Panhandler Concerns Residents.” It seems that every day, a man stood at an intersection in the small town of Henniker holding a sign reading “Hungry.” Many residents complained to the selectmen and asked them to do something about it. When the topic came up at the next selectmen’s meeting, the chairman asked, “What are you going to do, arrest him and then give him a meal?”
Sixty years ago, that would have been precisely the response to a hungry vagrant in small-town New Hampshire. He would have been taken to the jail if there was one, to an inn or a private home if there wasn’t, and there he’d be fed. Thirty years ago, a local official might even have helped him sign up for food stamps or welfare. But now, feeding a hungry man would seem to be trouble waiting to happen, for one of the other selectmen advised the townspeople, “The best way to avoid the problem is not to give out free food.”
Times have changed. To be sure, common morality still calls for feeding a hungry man, yet today, when I tell this story and ask audiences what they think the selectman meant, everyone seems to know. It’s as if I’d asked a kindergarten class the color of the sky.
“If you give out free food, the man will just keep coming back for more.”
“If you give him food, he’ll become dependent.”
“Other poor people will come to the town, knowing that there’s free food.”
“If you help him, you’re just enabling him.”
“Better to teach a man to fish.”
These answers pretty well summarize the new conventional wisdom: “Help is harmful. Don’t do it.” What’s worse, these answers inform the minds and policies of our politicians and are written into the moral code of government. Taken together, they express our reigning public philosophy. Help is harmful. Giving is bad. Compassion is a form of self-indulgence—it makes us feel better but worsens the problem. Helping people enables them to slack off their personal effort. Sharing opens the door to freeloaders. We must teach personal responsibility. Self-reliance is the best way live.
But shouldn’t we make sure we understand the question before we come up with stock answers? We ought to wonder what exactly is the problem we are trying to avoid, in Henniker or anywhere else. Is it that a hungry man is begging on our town streets, disturbing the residents and making passers-by uncomfortable? Or is it that he’s hungry? If he’s hungry, perhaps we should feed him first and tend to his moral education later. Common morality still calls upon us to help a person in distress.
Americans are caught in a war between these two views of help. In one view, self-interest is the only motive that spurs people to work and contribute to society. Too much help makes people passive and dependent. Therefore, government should help citizens as little as possible so as to stoke their ambition and prod them to self-reliance. Citizens, for their part, should restrain their compassion, just as the Henniker selectman advised, and rethink their support for government helping programs. A nation that coddles its weak becomes a weak nation. Help is harmful.
In the other view, the Good Samaritan stands as moral hero. His moral code is simple: Help When Help Is Needed. It’s always wrong not to help. In everyday life, people help their friends and families and they often help strangers. They help because they believe no one is truly independent and that help is usually helpful. Most of all, though, people help others because they care about others. “Care” is another way of saying that our interests are hopelessly intertwined and that anyone’s self-interest includes the well-being of others. In this view, people believe they have an obligation to care for others and they think government ought help them do it. They think a community is only as strong as its weakest link.
Our deepest political struggles aren’t over the mechanics of government or the details of policy, but over the moral code we steer by. The two views of help are two moralities pulling in different directions. For twenty five years or so, the country has been pulled toward the first view. In a great political upheaval, the political center moved rightward and turned the Good Samaritan’s moral code inside out. Instead of “Help When Help Is Needed,” our public philosophy proclaims “Help is Harmful.”
Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Help and the American Malaise

Chapter 2: How the Good Samaritan Became Bad

Chapter 3: Why Good Samaritans Make Great Citizens

Chapter 4. The Good Samaritan Shows The Right Way To Help

Chapter 5: The Good Samaritan’s Boat Holds Everyone

Chapter 6: The Good Samaritan Gives Economics Lessons

Chapter 7: The Good Samaritan Answers To A Higher Law

Chapter 8: Help for a Nation in Trouble
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)