Probing Analysis of the Moral Justifications for the Welfare State
(Book Review) This is probably the best and most detailed analysis of the moral justifications for the welfare state. Exactly what one would expect from Dr. Kelley, one of today’s leading philosophers. I particularly enjoyed the history of private philanthropy. Kelley shows that the welfare state was not a response to inadequacies of private philanthropy, but derives from the idea that people had right to be free from the restraints of reality. According to this idea, people should not be constrained by the fact that they have to earn a living or die, or that they get sick or injured, or that they grow old, or that they have to create shelter to live in. An excellent book and a must read for anyone interested in the philosophical underpinnings of the welfare state.
BTW: I find it interesting that Dr. Kelley appears to weigh in on the debate about self-ownership or self-sovereignty inadvertently. A number of times in the book he uses these and similar phrases and even quotes Locke’s idea that we have a property right in ourselves. This issue is an ongoing debate that appears to have been created by Leonard Peikoff’s attack on the idea of self-ownership. Dr. Peikoff’s attack is inconsistent with Rand’s own words on point.
BTW: I find it interesting that Dr. Kelley appears to weigh in on the debate about self-ownership or self-sovereignty inadvertently. A number of times in the book he uses these and similar phrases and even quotes Locke’s idea that we have a property right in ourselves. This issue is an ongoing debate that appears to have been created by Leonard Peikoff’s attack on the idea of self-ownership. Dr. Peikoff’s attack is inconsistent with Rand’s own words on point.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Dr. Kelley provides a number of practical/legal reasons why government aid is always a poor substitute for private charity.
I have followed the workings of several societies over the years and what I see is not good and getting worse. It starts off by recognizing that some have real bad luck in disability or employment. Then a safety net is put in, that works fairly well - like welfare and tax rates in Singapore and Hong Kong. Then the amounts go up to enable the disadvantaged to live in dignity, then the eligibility criteria are loosened, then more staff are needed. Then there is a big lobby of state workers advocating for their own career interests. Then living on welfare becomes a lifestyle choice, a career. This tradition, culture, is carried over in families like trade skills. Countries that have high welfare attract migrants who intend to live on it, this is good for careers of the staff.
So, the costs escalate for several reasons, all next to impossible to control let alone stop. But, it is worse than that- the money to pay for it goes down. As more choose welfare as a lifestyle, so tax revenue goes down.
Then there are less tangible factors like governments having to raise taxes, or print money.
All in all, an idea that sounds good and is emotionally appealing, especially at election time, leads to an economic and social downward spiral.
Can some frugal level be set, like the size of government, and held to?
Or, once you have a bit, are there are pressures for growth that cannot be resisted at least in democracies?