The Case for Government Welfare
In the thread about "ELI the ICE man" cgervasi confessed this sin: "I am an unusual Rand supporter because I support gov't efforts to reduce poverty and improve education. I am open to gov't programs to encourage innovation, but I agree it's tricky. It's easy for programs to become boondoogles for those good at grant writing and/or politically connected to the agencies that disburse money."
Well... if the government were funded entirely by voluntary means, then it is up to the people to decide what its proper function might be.
For instance, we take it for granted in the Bill of Rights that in an civil suit you can have a jury trial, but Rand questioned that. In fact, private agencies have delivered commercial arbitration for nearly 1000 years. (Criminal cases are a different matter, entirely.) And following Rand, some have suggested government lotteries as a way to raise money non-coercively, though it would put the government in the gaming business. (Government whorehouses? Government -drug- stores? Where does it end?)
If the only purpose of government is to hold a monopoly on retaliatory force, then welfare and education are clearly beyond that limit.
The philosophy of Objectivism offers some cogent insights to the attendant problems here. No dichotomy exists between morality and practicality. (Rand did quip that "the definition of practical depends on what you intend to practice.") The moral -is- practical and vice versa. Many problems attend any government program, especially retaliatory force. Force negates free will. No compulsive alternative can be a moral choice. So, if the government were to engage in welfare and education, it would face the same problems as if it were engaged in steel-making and transportation. Absent market feedback, depending on force, bad decisions are guaranteed.
That is the problem with government welfare, even though both F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman endorsed the same "floor under the poor" as John Rawls.
That all being true, it is an interesting point that perhaps 20% of the goods and services in our society have no clear title. Ever go to a flea market? Many of the new-in-a-box items might have been stolen at a transportation way-point such as a truck stop or railroad junction. Who knows? Ultimately, even a Fortune 100 corporation has only indemnifications, not actual proof, when it buys from suppliers.
The point is that a truly laissez faire capitalist society will easily be able to afford the "floor under the poor" and the government (funded entirely voluntarily) could deliver that.
Consider this: It costs upwards of $60,000 per year to house a convict in prison. Would it not be cheaper to pay them $30,000 a year to stay home?
Well... if the government were funded entirely by voluntary means, then it is up to the people to decide what its proper function might be.
For instance, we take it for granted in the Bill of Rights that in an civil suit you can have a jury trial, but Rand questioned that. In fact, private agencies have delivered commercial arbitration for nearly 1000 years. (Criminal cases are a different matter, entirely.) And following Rand, some have suggested government lotteries as a way to raise money non-coercively, though it would put the government in the gaming business. (Government whorehouses? Government -drug- stores? Where does it end?)
If the only purpose of government is to hold a monopoly on retaliatory force, then welfare and education are clearly beyond that limit.
The philosophy of Objectivism offers some cogent insights to the attendant problems here. No dichotomy exists between morality and practicality. (Rand did quip that "the definition of practical depends on what you intend to practice.") The moral -is- practical and vice versa. Many problems attend any government program, especially retaliatory force. Force negates free will. No compulsive alternative can be a moral choice. So, if the government were to engage in welfare and education, it would face the same problems as if it were engaged in steel-making and transportation. Absent market feedback, depending on force, bad decisions are guaranteed.
That is the problem with government welfare, even though both F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman endorsed the same "floor under the poor" as John Rawls.
That all being true, it is an interesting point that perhaps 20% of the goods and services in our society have no clear title. Ever go to a flea market? Many of the new-in-a-box items might have been stolen at a transportation way-point such as a truck stop or railroad junction. Who knows? Ultimately, even a Fortune 100 corporation has only indemnifications, not actual proof, when it buys from suppliers.
The point is that a truly laissez faire capitalist society will easily be able to afford the "floor under the poor" and the government (funded entirely voluntarily) could deliver that.
Consider this: It costs upwards of $60,000 per year to house a convict in prison. Would it not be cheaper to pay them $30,000 a year to stay home?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Consider the simplistic argument that society has a choice of spending money educating the poor or spending money dealing with these same people in the criminal justice system. (This is not to say that most crime is related to poverty or ignorance, but at least some crime is.) You're saying it's theft to take people's money by force to fund an education program. But it's not theft to do the same thing for a criminal justice program.
This doesn't make sense to me. People should be free to form gov't to take both approaches. Then we need to work to keep these approaches from getting out of hand, as they clearly often do.
Not if he becomes MY neighbor!
What were you thinking! (Or, smoking?) ;-)