We often hear from the progressive left that we need a powerful welfare state in a free society, because people without resources cannot be free. The poor might not be able to get enough food, may have to work long hours instead of tending to their families, and may not have any time to enjoy the benefits of culture and society.

It is true that, at various times, many individuals and families endure periods of hardship. They lack the resources to do the things that they believe will make them happy, whether it be money, a home, a job, or whatever else they lack. It certainly is difficult to be happy with an empty, growling stomach.

Money is the means to satisfy basic needs, but property, more generally, allows us to make more of our efforts and to live more comfortable, fulfilling lives. That is the justification for the welfare state. The government needs to provide some level of resources so people will have at least a modicum of freedom from vagaries of reality to pursue their own happiness.

The underlying assumption, however, is that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer without the redistributive hand of benevolent politicians, that, if you have no resources to start with, there is little chance of improving your position. That assumption implicitly denies that every person, man, woman, and child, has property in his or her own body, mind, creativity, and productivity. Slavery is taking away that property in one’s own being. Freedom means retaining that right.

I recently went back through some genealogical records and was reminded of my grandfather, who immigrated from Ireland in the year 1900, and my grandmother, who came a few years later. As with many millions of others, they came with little money or other property. They did have have their dreams, however, and ownership of their productive capacity. My grandfather got work on a merchant ship and later became a chauffeur. He learned more skills and eventually became a self-employed carpenter and cabinetmaker. As he traded the property in his labors for money, he was able to accumulate other property through productivity and frugality.

The early years with a young and growing family were not easy, but because you start with nothing does not mean you will end with nothing. They were able, through effort, saving, and accumulating, to improve their lot in life and to successfully raise a family, even through the extremely difficult times of the Great Depression. This was all before the advent of the welfare state, large-scale unionization, or the minimum wage.

The political left’s argument for immigration is strikingly similar, that, when people come to America, they don’t come to be a burden on the taxpayer. They come, rather, to build a new life, to be productive, and to become a successful part of society. Both society at large and the individual benefit. That, I believe, is the reality in the vast majority of cases. That, however, does not fit with the left’s arguments for the welfare state. Either people are able to build a life for themselves or they are not. History has certainly shown that they are capable, even if it is very difficult at times.

Happiness can most effectively be pursued when people are free to fail and to learn and to improve. My grandfather was not a shining example. He was just one of the vast sea of people who proved the point over and over again. Nobody has a right to an easy life or to happiness, but only rights to their lives, their liberty, and their property. When they are maximized for individuals, they maximize the benefits to society.

Dan McLaughlin is the author of “Compassion and Truth-Why Good Intentions Don’t Equal Good Results.” Follow him at daniel-mclaughlin.com.