How to make the case for ending the welfare state?

[nodeal]

It seems as though a lot of people are coming around on spending issues due to the obvious role debt plays in our economic woes. With this decrease in spending, Republicans are quick to start suggesting cuts from welfare and entitlements, even before suggesting that we cut our military spending. While this is ridiculous, and cutting military should be first priority, the fact still remains that our welfare state is unsustainable, no matter how good its intentions are.

But even some people who understand the negatives of a welfare state are still willing to defend welfare to a certain extent.

When I suggest to someone that, ideally, we should end all forms of government welfare, they automatically take their argument into the realm of extremes, saying:

"Well what about the person who has a family and loses their job through no fault of their own? They need government compensation, don't they? Or would you just let them go without any form of income?"

This is often where the conversation leads a lot of the time when I discuss abolishing welfare with someone. I try to make the point that in a society that did not transfer wealth among classes, did not tax individuals so extensively, and did not spend beyond their means, we would:

1) Have less unemployment and job loss overall
2) Have more opportunity, making employment elsewhere entirely possible for those who have lost a current job.
3) Have more prosperity on the individual level, allowing the capability for voluntary charity. Therefore, people truly in need are much more likely to be able to seek help through family, friends, neighbors, churches, etc.

However, when making these points, I am criticized for being too "idealistic" and "not realistic enough". It often seems like these answers are too broad for some people, not addressing the issues directly enough. This is fair enough, but I don't know what else to tell people when they lay the "What about the person who lost a job, has 3 kids, a house, and blah blah blah..." on me.

So how would you guys respond?

[hazek]

History is on your side.

Just look up any issue governmental intervened or tried to "help" and check their record of how successful they were.

History is on your side.

Just look up any issue government didn't intervene or didn't try to "help" and check the record how the issue panned out.

[fisharmor]

However, when making these points, I am criticized for being too "idealistic" and "not realistic enough". It often seems like these answers are too broad for some people, not addressing the issues directly enough. This is fair enough, but I don't know what else to tell people when they lay the "What about the person who lost a job, has 3 kids, a house, and blah blah blah..." on me.

So how would you guys respond?

We have track records of both ideologies now.
Neither works 100%.
But taking the 70% solution and trashing it in favor of the 40% solution, and yelling about needing more money instead of realizing it has never gotten above 40%, is the very definition of being too idealistic and not realistic enough.

[Travlyr]

Be patient and persistent. Pretty soon your ideas will be more welcome than they are now. The person who lost a job, has 3 kids, a house, and blah blah blah... is not going to get his job or house back. Always before there was a recovery, but that is not true ... this time.

This time the fiat economy is done as stated by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago. (Paraphrasing) "If the Fed had not acted, (tarp, etc.) the economy would have crashed, and we did not see it coming." That huge revelation by the most important financial wizard in the world is taken way too lightly by everyone.

Liberty, Peace and Prosperity go hand in hand with honest money.

Tyranny, Wars and Poverty go hand in hand with counterfeit money.

Show them this debate between Ron Paul & Charles Partee, and they should understand. http://mises.org/media/1203

[Stary Hickory]

Unemployment Insurance did not exist until recently. People did not die or become destitute. They had friends, families, and charities they would use. Also people would not leech off people they had to interact with and have a personal relationship with.

With a welfare state people are more than happy to rob and leech off nameless and faceless individuals.

[TonySutton]

The welfare state is a MORAL HAZARD!

moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

Because we have a welfare state people are not prepared for the problems life throws at us. For the few who have problems caring for themselves we have family and charity organizations.

People could purchase unemployment insurance themselves or put money in savings to cover periods of unemployment. What do farmers do in the winter to feed their families? What do roofers do in the winter to feed their families? They save money during the fat times to cover their expenses during the lean times.

[nodeal]

We have track records of both ideologies now.
Neither works 100%.
But taking the 70% solution and trashing it in favor of the 40% solution, and yelling about needing more money instead of realizing it has never gotten above 40%, is the very definition of being too idealistic and not realistic enough.

I agree and have used this point before. But you know what point the person I am arguing with reverts back to? "America is the greatest and most prosperous country. Where else would you rather live? We must be doing something right."

Whenever I try to point out how f**ked up our entitlement system is, I get slammed with accusations of not being grateful for living in a country with the highest standards of living.

The argument against me is "We're still the best so we must be doing it right".

[Elwar]

SET THEM FREE

The entire effort to wed morality and politics is based on the assumption that there are immoral or irresponsible people who can't be bent into shape unless the government does it.

Yes, there are people who won't act responsibly. There are people who have no regard for the consequences of their own acts. There are people who seem to be incapable of behaving wisely or benevolently.

Politicians exploit these people to justify rigid controls on your life. Because some people won't plan for their old age, you must be forced into Social Security. Because some people will do funny things after looking at dirty pictures on the Internet, your access to the Internet must be restricted.

So what should we do about people who won't take responsibility for their own actions? I believe the answer is simple:

Set them free.

Give them the freedom to make their own decisions, to face the consequences of their own acts, to see for themselves what their actions do to others, and how others respond to them.

Only free people have an incentive to be virtuous. Only people who bear the consequences of their own acts will care about those consequences.

A free society rewards virtue and punishes irresponsibility. Government does just the opposite.

What do we do about people who might not plan for their own retirement?

Set them free.

Let each person know that his future depends largely on his own actions. If younger people see some older people who haven't planned ahead and have to rely on charity, the young will be more likely to provide for the future. Today when someone plans poorly, the only consequence younger people see is a call for more government.

What do we do about people who are insensitive to other people?

Set them free.

Let other people shun them or respect them for what they do. Let them feel the results of being civil or uncivil.


Freedom & Responsibility

It is often said that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin — that if you want freedom, you must first accept the responsibility that goes with it.

The truth is simpler. Freedom and responsibility aren't two sides of the same thing; one isn't a precondition for the other. They are the same thing.

Freedom is responsibility. Responsibility is experiencing the consequences of your own acts — not the consequences of others' acts or making others pay for what you do.

And that's what freedom is. Without government to force others to pay for your pleasures or mistakes, and without forcing you to pay for what others do, you are a free, responsible human being.

Freedom and responsibility are inseparably linked — not because they should be, but because they are. Responsibility accompanies freedom, whether or not you want it to.

We are told America must have a moral revival before we can have greater freedom — that people must be educated to be responsible before they can be free. This puts the cart before the horse.

If we expect a government program to make people responsible, we will wait forever.

We don't need a moral revival, we don't need politicians making moral decisions for us. We need do only one thing to induce people to act more responsibly:

Set them free.

-Harry Browne (http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/Morality.htm)

[Brian4Liberty]

Long term welfare does not help people, it destroys them. Do people who support welfare really want to hurt the people who receive it?

[JamesButabi]

The argument against me is "We're still the best so we must be doing it right".

Well, even this statement is on the hinges. What criteria are they using to define this? In most categories an apologist will use, there is a steady decline for the US and a steady rise in other countries. Mostly relative as well to the amount of government involvement.

[RedStripe]

The welfare state is an integral component of modern industrialized state-capitalism. Its political purpose is to win legitimacy for the political ruling class, but its structural economic purpose is to act as a safety valve for the excess humanity not required by the great machine called state-capitalism. There's a reason that no one in the top 1-5% of wealthy in this country would ever support an end to the welfare state ("Um, we're doing just fine, thank you"). Partly, it helps prevent civil unrest which this system would otherwise produce in massive quantities (e.g. 1890s).

But it's true purpose is to essentially pay the "cost" of having a rigged economic system. Remember that the state is where the owners of the system, the business interests, are able to avoid the prisoner's dilemma and enact broad policies which help to stabilize things for their collective class benefit (though, naturally, there are factions at the table). An obvious example of this phenomenon is the creation of the Federal Reserve, but it is not in the least bit unique (aside from the mystique of Jekyll Island).

Poverty and a permanent unemployment base are examples of the "costs" of the system that must be dealt with somehow. Before the welfare state, the suffering inflicted by state-capitalism upon the masses of the people was checked by the actions of the masses themselves. The labor struggle, on one hand, and the mutual aid societies on the other. Tolerated initially to the extent that they helped stabilize the system as a whole, these developments - especially the labor struggle - eventually became two-prong challenge to the status quo.

On the one hand, the labor struggle was coalescing into a populist (and quite libertarian in many respects) political movement which threatened the economic elite's domination of the political system. On the other hand, the mutual aid system increased in popularity and gave workers independence from employment by the industrial titans - it was beginning to show people that they didn't need the system. It contributed to a growing realization that other methods of social organization which didn't include the robber baron and government middle-men were possible.

The welfare state was adopted, probably unconsciously to a large extent, to arrest both of these trends. Not only did it restore the political status quo, but it also created a three-way system of mutual dependence: the businesses relied on the government to protect the basic rules of the rigged game (enforcement of contracts, subsidies, infrastructure, open markets, ); the government relied on public support to maintain political legitimacy; and the masses relied on big business and the government for employment and security, respectively.

Society is like an ecosystem with persistent conflicts of forces and interest and which always evolves towards some form of equilibrium. The welfare system is just one result of a complex evolution of our society. There simply isn't a way to debate its reform meaningfully without addressing the reasons it developed and the role it plays today.

I think a society without the welfare state is possible and preferable. But to simply speak of "abolishing" the welfare state (or the state itself) is pure silliness. What does it even mean to say "the welfare state should be abolished?" I would argue that such a statement, isolated from the context of a clear narrative of the past, present, and future of society, is as nonsensical as "the Bills should win the Superbowl this season."

1. The welfare system can only end under specific circumstances, just as it could only begin given certain circumstances (the existence of the state, for one), although there may be multiple sets of different circumstances in which it could occur.

2. To claim that it would be preferable for the welfare state to be abolished is to, in essence, claim that one of the scenarios in which it is even plausible that the welfare state is abolished is, itself, a preferable scenario (in due consideration of the multitude of other consequences of that scenario).

3. To claim that such a scenario is preferable, it is then necessary to explain the likelihood of that scenario, or those circumstances, coming to pass, and outline a strategy of actions (if any) that could be taken to push the dice of destiny in that direction.

This is what I think people are really asking for when they react incredulously to simple assertions about how the world "ought to be" which don't really seem to take enough consideration of [I]how the world actually is. Come up with a narrative which addresses 1-3, and I believe you will have a much easier time convincing someone to support your sweeping suggestions.

#2 is key. I would argue that any scenario in which the abolition of the welfare state is even a legitimate possibility would only occur in a society which is in many ways radically different from the society we live in today. So radical, in fact, that the abolition of the welfare state would probably be one of the more minor differences between that society and this one. In light of the way our world is changing, the only viable path I see between this society and a society as radical as needed to make abolition of welfare possible is that of massive, left-libertarian decentralization both politically and economically, brought about by simultaneous energy crises, state financial collapse, obsolescence of the mainstream industrial economy, rise of efficient, networked systems of local production, and active resistance to the state-corporate complex and culture by guerrilla activists/hacktivists and their local allies.

[nodeal]

The welfare state is an integral component of modern industrialized state-capitalism. Its political purpose is to win legitimacy for the political ruling class, but its structural economic purpose is to act as a safety valve for the excess humanity not required by the great machine called state-capitalism. There's a reason that no one in the top 1-5% of wealthy in this country would ever support an end to the welfare state ("Um, we're doing just fine, thank you"). Partly, it helps prevent civil unrest which this system would otherwise produce in massive quantities (e.g. 1890s).

But it's true purpose is to essentially pay the "cost" of having a rigged economic system. Remember that the state is where the owners of the system, the business interests, are able to avoid the prisoner's dilemma and enact broad policies which help to stabilize things for their collective class benefit (though, naturally, there are factions at the table). An obvious example of this phenomenon is the creation of the Federal Reserve, but it is not in the least bit unique (aside from the mystique of Jekyll Island).

Poverty and a permanent unemployment base are examples of the "costs" of the system that must be dealt with somehow. Before the welfare state, the suffering inflicted by state-capitalism upon the masses of the people was checked by the actions of the masses themselves. The labor struggle, on one hand, and the mutual aid societies on the other. Tolerated initially to the extent that they helped stabilize the system as a whole, these developments - especially the labor struggle - eventually became two-prong challenge to the status quo.

On the one hand, the labor struggle was coalescing into a populist (and quite libertarian in many respects) political movement which threatened the economic elite's domination of the political system. On the other hand, the mutual aid system increased in popularity and gave workers independence from employment by the industrial titans - it was beginning to show people that they didn't need the system. It contributed to a growing realization that other methods of social organization which didn't include the robber baron and government middle-men were possible.

The welfare state was adopted, probably unconsciously to a large extent, to arrest both of these trends. Not only did it restore the political status quo, but it also created a three-way system of mutual dependence: the businesses relied on the government to protect the basic rules of the rigged game (enforcement of contracts, subsidies, infrastructure, open markets, ); the government relied on public support to maintain political legitimacy; and the masses relied on big business and the government for employment and security, respectively.

Society is like an ecosystem with persistent conflicts of forces and interest and which always evolves towards some form of equilibrium. The welfare system is just one result of a complex evolution of our society. There simply isn't a way to debate its reform meaningfully without addressing the reasons it developed and the role it plays today.

I think a society without the welfare state is possible and preferable. But to simply speak of "abolishing" the welfare state (or the state itself) is pure silliness. What does it even mean to say "the welfare state should be abolished?" I would argue that such a statement, isolated from the context of a clear narrative of the past, present, and future of society, is as nonsensical as "the Bills should win the Superbowl this season."

1. The welfare system can only end under specific circumstances, just as it could only begin given certain circumstances (the existence of the state, for one), although there may be multiple sets of different circumstances in which it could occur.

2. To claim that it would be preferable for the welfare state to be abolished is to, in essence, claim that one of the scenarios in which it is even plausible that the welfare state is abolished is, itself, a preferable scenario (in due consideration of the multitude of other consequences of that scenario).

3. To claim that such a scenario is preferable, it is then necessary to explain the likelihood of that scenario, or those circumstances, coming to pass, and outline a strategy of actions (if any) that could be taken to push the dice of destiny in that direction.

This is what I think people are really asking for when they react incredulously to simple assertions about how the world "ought to be" which don't really seem to take enough consideration of [I]how the world actually is. Come up with a narrative which addresses 1-3, and I believe you will have a much easier time convincing someone to support your sweeping suggestions.

#2 is key. I would argue that any scenario in which the abolition of the welfare state is even a legitimate possibility would only occur in a society which is in many ways radically different from the society we live in today. So radical, in fact, that the abolition of the welfare state would probably be one of the more minor differences between that society and this one. In light of the way our world is changing, the only viable path I see between this society and a society as radical as needed to make abolition of welfare possible is that of massive, left-libertarian decentralization both politically and economically, brought about by simultaneous energy crises, state financial collapse, obsolescence of the mainstream industrial economy, rise of efficient, networked systems of local production, and active resistance to the state-corporate complex and culture by guerrilla activists/hacktivists and their local allies.

Very insightful and eloquent. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[fisharmor]

Whenever I try to point out how f**ked up our entitlement system is, I get slammed with accusations of not being grateful for living in a country with the highest standards of living.

The argument against me is "We're still the best so we must be doing it right".

It's still a matter of scale.
The greatest increase in standard of living did NOT occur in the 20th century.
It occurred in the 19th century.
Running water. Central heat. Non-living transportation. Mechanization. Gas lighting, then Electricity. Motion pictures. Recorded sound. Industrialization. Increased output. Lowered prices.
New and safer travel on the seas. Trade the likes of which the world had never seen.
Not to mention little nuggets like the end of slavery.
All of that happened in a free market with little or no state safety net.

What does the 20th century have? Two horrific world wars, central banking, moon rocks, and internet porn.

So you take that standard of living bunk and throw it right back in their faces.

[awake]

Short answer; stealing from one to give to, and cripple, another is a case of two wrongs making and even bigger wrong. No good can come from violence and theft - no matter how convincing and eloquent the case is made for doing it. Gotta give props to the first commandment; freakn' genius.

[teacherone]

honestly getting into a morality debate has NEVER worked for me and instead has seriously backfired (strained a few relationships with my close family).

i seriously think we should take a lead from Rand and discuss the economics of the issue--- welfare doesn't work. look at greece, great britain, ireland, spain, france, all needing to cut back and facing societal collapse. the only reason it works in germany is because there is no freedom whatsoever and kids are told whether or not they can go to university in the 4th grade!

talk economics and practical reality. avoid morality like the plague.

[awake]

honestly getting into a morality debate has NEVER worked for me and instead has seriously backfired (strained a few relationships with my close family).

i seriously think we should take a lead from Rand and discuss the economics of the issue--- welfare doesn't work. look at greece, great britain, ireland, spain, france, all needing to cut back and facing societal collapse. the only reason it works in germany is because there is no freedom whatsoever and kids are told whether or not they can go to university in the 4th grade!

talk economics and practical reality. avoid morality like the plague.

I think you have to make the case in every sphere where the argument can be made, some may respond to the moral case and not the economic one. The opposite may be true in other cases... It is tailoring to the individual. It is good to have your debating toolbox with the tools you might need.

[RedStripe]

It's still a matter of scale.
The greatest increase in standard of living did NOT occur in the 20th century.
It occurred in the 19th century.
Running water. Central heat. Non-living transportation. Mechanization. Gas lighting, then Electricity. Motion pictures. Recorded sound. Industrialization. Increased output. Lowered prices.
New and safer travel on the seas. Trade the likes of which the world had never seen.
Not to mention little nuggets like the end of slavery.
All of that happened in a free market with little or no state safety net.

What does the 20th century have? Two horrific world wars, central banking, moon rocks, and internet porn.

So you take that standard of living bunk and throw it right back in their faces.


To your bolded/underlined claim: Wrong. This is like arguing that the rise of feudalism "happened in a free market" - it absolutely did not. If anything, the size of government and the scope of its activities within the economic system grew in proportion to the complexity and scale of industrial production methods. They were mutually-reinforcing trends wholly dependent on each other.

The 19th century had its own share of bloody wars and barbarism, the extent of which was only really changed in the 20th century by the development, thanks to industrialization of the 19th century, technologies which were capable of sustaining even more horrific wars.

And let's put some things in perspective. A fucking caveman had a more dignified and fulfilling existence than the average factory worker of that time period, despite the fact that by the 19th century humans had access to technologies beyond the wildest imaginations of our pre-agrarian ancestors. Sure, it was an improvement in some ways over the pre-industrial agrarian existence, but even that is quite debatable.

The industrial revolution isn't the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind, but it certainly isn't the best. Most of the "advances" we attribute to that period were, in all honesty, the result of the fact that by pure accident we bumped into absurdly cheap energy - energy that isn't likely to last for another century. Slavery was abolished because cheap energy took its place - calorie for calorie the amount of fossil fuels we consume directly or indirectly on a daily basis is probably the equivalent of having hundreds of slaves working for each of us, although I don't know the exact math off of the top of my head.

Fact is, things like this are complex and hard to diagnose. What about the rise of the American middle class in post-WWII America? Should we credit the government's extensive programs? But look at how much more prosperous the US became at that time, and yet there was more government then than there was in the 19th century!

It's just not that simple, either way. One thing I can say for certain is that the 19th century was anything BUT a free market, as the libertarian-socialists of the time documented extensively (e.g. Benjamin Tucker).

[RedStripe]

No good can come from violence and theft - no matter how convincing and eloquent the case is made for doing it.

If that is the case, nothing good can ever exist because everything that exists and everything that will ever exist will to some degree be the byproduct of violence and theft (however we might attempt to define those things).

[awake]

If that is the case, nothing good can ever exist because everything that exists and everything that will ever exist will to some degree be the byproduct of violence and theft (however we might attempt to define those things).

I am talking about the initial acts... There may be innocent persons unknowingly benefit from these acts of aggression, but that fact alone does not absolve the original unjust means used to bring about this transfer. In fact, if property rights were upheld in every sense, there would be such a thing as generational reparations to serve justice in provable cases of rightful ownership of property claims. In other words, if your great grandfather stole my great grand fathers house, no matter what time frame passes, if I, or my descendants, can prove that it happened, then a return of that property or equivalent, plus other damages, would be just reparations from the wrongful heirs to the rightful heirs.

[Inkblots]

Here's a brief form of an argument I sometimes use.

Firstly, no one disputes the importance of caring for the indigent and the sick. As I Christian, I consider it one of my most important duties in this life. However, it's a question of finding the best means to accomplish that end. Private, charitable giving and social welfare payments both have the same practical effect, the transfer of money from the more to the less prosperous. However, what are the intangible of effects of these two processes, whose material effects are largely identical? Charitable giving usually gives rise to feelings gratitude on the part of its recipients, and of magnanimity on those giving alms: it engenders warm feelings all around. On the other hand, involuntary redistribution of wealth often causes resentment on the part of those who are being expropriated, and entitlement on the part of those receiving it, leading the recipients to resent the grumblings of the net contributors. Thus, these two paths to the same end are very different indeed in their effects on the social psyche: one creates a community marked by feelings of love, gratitude, and mutual support, while the other leads to mutual resentment, entitlement, and class warfare. One is wholly positive, and the other wholly negative.

And even if you care little for the social aura of the community in which you live, if you truly care for the poor, you must ask yourself: which of these systems is more sustainable? The strong social bonds of charity and gratitude developed through voluntary giving are very likely to endure and strengthen during times of hardship, and may indeed become bidirectional. But compulsory giving, if some development should suddenly remove the authority forcing the transfer payments to be made, is very unlikely to continue on its own. Those who resented being made to pay will keep their resources for themselves, as they have always resented being forbidden to do. And those who feel entitled to the fruits of others labors are more likely to try to restore the payments by force, likely rioting - after all, they have learned to think of it as 'their money' - than by asking humbly for help or offering what skills they have in exchange for aid.

If a dollar crisis comes or the Federal and state governments suffer a bond strike - and these days this possibility can no longer be dismissed as unthinkable - those who we have made completely dependent on social welfare programs will be in very deep trouble. It is no kindness to the poor to further their dependence on a system that depends for resources on the rapidly diminishing Federal Treasury, because days are coming, and may be here soon, when that Treasury will be empty. And those people made dependent on this failing system - out of the best of intentions - will find themselves facing a human tragedy of vast scale.

It should be clear that furthering this dependence at this junction is not only not a kindness for the needy, but is actively setting them up, making them vulnerable to great harm should even the smallest disruptions occur. The best thing we can do is transition people gradually, while there is still time, to local, voluntary networks of support, based around families, churches, and local fraternal and beneficent societies. Then we can be sure that, should even the unthinkable happen, a wealth of social capital will have been stored up to see the poor and disabled through difficult times.