If you say that it may be a good thing for human choice to be limited by human force, then I will ask which choices you do and do not like made for you. Then I will ask the next person, and then I will ask myself. I should hope that we would all say emphatically: “I will make my own choices, thank you!” But perhaps we do not and perhaps your neighbor and myself think your choice to be poor. By what moral may we levy our majority hand over you to limit your existence for the benefit of our own? Ah! But you made no mention of what is moral! You stated, only, that the societal benefit implied by what is a ‘good’ thing may be in question. Here I will describe the societal benefit of what is also moral–in relation to the welfare state most specifically. .
Some will hold up the stated purpose of the welfare state to convince us of its usefulness. After all, the modern welfare system was, indeed, created to fight the hunger and other sad manifestations of poverty and misfortune. But the stated purpose of the purveyors matters not; for the implementers of policy can exclaim that its purpose is anything as quickly as they can form their words. So it is clear that to justify policy, with the words of politicians or other promoters exclusively, is blatantly thoughtless.
Somewhat less thoughtless are those who insist that it is not the words of powerful men, but rather an empirical view which should be used to determine the true nature of policy and its effects. This insistence upon empirical evidence is understandable; but to be empirical is a tricky thing. It seems as if the implication resounds that "empiricism” requires the use of numbers or, rather, statistics. Why would one choose statistics, which, by frequent idiomatic admission, may be classified (as well as one can classify bad things) into the same category as lies? The evidence presented by logic and reason, seeing as it is based in things that are plain, rather than contrived with insurmountable complication, has the advantage when it comes to things empirical (especially within the realm of understanding cause and effect in economics).
But still the current state and the known history of human existence is often raised as evidence that the logic around which some claim a truly free society of long-term sustainability may be formed does not fit in with empirical reality. The present fortune of humanity, when compared to the mostly destitute human existence recorded by history, has given cause for many observers to remark that the prosperous time in which we live is the result of the modern welfare state—the unimpeachable “safety net” is commonly considered the harbinger of a prosperous society comprised of morality and justice. But the obstacle for the legitimacy of such an argument, which relies on either a shallow interpretation or unverifiable quantities, is in that there is not enough evidence in the form of reliable numerical statistics in the world with which one can form an appropriate theory if the purpose is a theory which guides us towards economic understanding; not in the case of state welfare, nor in any other case as encompassing. The fact remains that there are no truly lasting and prosperous societies (definite groups of organized men) known to human history. Certainly one can point to numerous instances where social welfare has helped people in a relative and immediate sense on a large scale (the more successful socialist societies of Europe for example), but not in the long term. It is unseen how social welfare programs could be part of a sustainable society–we have no evidence for that. In light of the exchange of resources which these programs create–the presence of law which enforces benefits at no expense to the beneficiary–it is not logical to consider such programs sustainable. There is not one part of the entire present volume of economic statistics which can be used to effectively argue for the welfare state as a part of a lasting and prosperous society. The only evidence which could be used to support the implementation of the welfare state lies in the fact that we currently have both some amount of prosperity and also many elements of a welfare state. To reach conclusions based upon such a flimsy correlation is absurd.
Alternatively, the reality which can be discovered through logic and reason makes it clear that the true capabilities of societies have not been realized and we have found our present relative prosperity in concurrence with increased welfare despite the welfare’s implementation, not as a result of it. The welfare state in which we presently live is one very unfortunate offspring of our amazing human progress; and, among the factors contributing to our prosperity as a people, it is one of a limiting nature. In other words, modern prosperity and modern welfare have both resulted from an increased emphasis on human freedom.
In still other words, modern social welfare is the result of our prosperity. The prosperity is not a result of the welfare as many empiricists might convince their contemporaries to believe. Every time throughout the history of human societies, as emphases arise which place relative importance on free choice, there is a corresponding rise in prosperity for that organization of people. Once this prosperity comes about those who are a part of it find the need to pool resources to do even greater things. It is in this “do good” pursuit that ideas are poisoned. Resources are spread and multiplied with free choice and then they are again quickly consolidated into central power in the pursuit of “doing good”. The average man, though, is so imperfect that power seems always to corrupt him. As man finds it in his power to impose his will upon others the descent into a less prosperous and more oppressive society is inevitably induced. Such is the source and the fate of the welfare state.
More specifically, the plight of the poor and needy is embedded in a culture and the culture surrounds a system of dependency. If one is born and raised in such a culture, it follows naturally that he would continue the traditions of his upbringing. To end the large scale support to those who find desires which cannot be met through self reliance would force a change in the culture of the unfortunate–to count on the state would no longer be an option. In a consideration of the three previous sentences alone it is possible discover the logic which makes it clear that the cessation of such support would result in fewer unrealizable desires amongst the poor.
This statement finds little disagreement: “poverty is a result of the system”. If poverty is the result of “the system” then is it not the system that must change? “The system" is the maintenance of a poor class of people. “The system” consists of the implements, the “programs”, of the welfare state itself. There is not something innate within the minds and bodies of lower classes of people which keeps them down; there is, rather, an outside influence which is perpetuating. Since there seems to be agreement among us that the poor are poor as a result of “the system” or “circumstances” and not something innate within them we must put great effort into realizing the identity of these circumstances. It is in the identification of these circumstances that the divide develops between what is expressed here and the views of the more popular beliefs which put a deranged view of “society” ahead of the very individuals from which society is formed.
Now if one believes, rather, that it is something innate, or bred into, classes of poor people which keeps them down, then the argument stated here may be demolished—but such is the reasoning of the polylogist. To view the lower classes in this way is to believe that they have a dramatic genetic inferiority which restricts the very human ability to reason.
In order to meet the desire which seeks understanding of the effects of large scale government policy, what is a better way to do it than to consider the “typical human actor” above all else? In what other way might one foretell the effects of such large scale operations as our dependable assistance programs? One may say “oh, but, how may you depend upon the ‘typical human actor’ in your argument regarding the poor, when those in the lowest classes are anything but ‘typical’?” The fact is there’s no exactly “typical person” in existence, but when faced with the decision to choose between one thing or another, there are often undeniable “most likely” human choices. So “typical human actor” refers to one who makes the most likely choice when faced with definite alternatives.
The “typical person” is used here not as a crutch or a cop out from understanding the details of the problem. An understanding of the typical person is the very tool which must be used in the formation of understanding. It is vital to this argument. If one takes issue with this, then the question resounds: what better place is there to look when trying to understand the effects of large scale social programs? When there is policy which applies to the whole of society the typical person must be considered if the goal is to understand how that policy may work. One may wonder, still, why the foreseeable acts of the typical person should be the object of concentration when programs of free assistance are used only by a small fraction of people. Well, these programs of reliable assistance do not apply only to that small fraction of users; they apply to the society as a whole. For, if one finds himself suddenly in a situation faced by so many unfortunate individuals, the same reliable assistance would be available to him. Being that it is available to all if the circumstances arise, and that it effects all by way of money redistribution, the “typical human actor” is not only relevant, but of the utmost import.
Further, to discover the choice a person (typical human actor) would make amongst definite alternatives one can look into oneself to see what he may do when faced with such a circumstance. It is in the realization and admission of the importance of human needs and desires that one may find the origin of a perpetual problem of poor. For, if it is relied upon—if it becomes ingrained within one’s life—the offspring of the reliant (those who are raised with the knowledge offered by the experiences of dependent parents) are likely to follow suit. In the moment when one finds himself in a position to lean towards free and reliably consistent assistance, rather than on his own will and ability, he finds a dependency where he had none before. A shallow analyzation of this dependency will result in an understandable but misguided rationalization and justification. Now some will scoff at the this method of understanding–they will claim that to imagine oneself in foreseeable circumstances is not a valid source of reasoning. But the question remains—what is a better method of understanding such a complex problem than through the use of sound logic? If one understands that most of humanity would take advantage of free relief if faced with certain realizable circumstances, then perhaps he can begin to understand that to cease large scale free support to the poor would create fewer poor overall (especially in the long term).
So if those who are capable of acting on their own free will don’t find their own way out of an unfortunate situation, then their path and the path of their children will likely not be one of sustainability. Here “likely” means, simply, that the affirmative possibilities outweigh the negative possibilities. “Sustainable” could be described alternatively as that which is “conducive to ultra long-term societal prosperity”. If we can agree that sustainable paths are more beneficial for society as a whole and we also agree that if those who are unfortunate will find a more sustainable path by finding their way out of that unfortunate situation by only their own means, then the extrapolation to effective large scale policy is clear. Explicitly: there should be no large scale policy, but that which repeals the current interventions. But, now, still the dense will ask: “but, but, but, what about all of these presently poor people and those who continue to find unfortunate circumstances, what are we to do with them?” And the logic will continue to exclaim: “NO, NO, NO; if you rely upon that question when you form policy the result will be MORE POOR PEOPLE, not less!”
If one would like to maintain this class of people because he thinks that he would not live in the same prosperous world without the lower classes doing the “hard” and lowly work, then he is wrong. But those who offer such void arguments should be alerted that it seems as though they desire to keep the poor in such a sad state for the benefit of their own comfortable life. The arguments in favor of slavery are similarly reproachable.
This reasoning, indeed, states outright that those who are weaker and poorer should not be assisted, but it is not because the unfortunate “should” be able to help themselves–it is because to interfere with the true nature of man will lead him to a sad state.
A repetitive, but more brief, plea:
You will accuse me of being crass and inconsiderate, or perhaps even evil; and you will ask me what I would do with all of these presently poor individuals. I will ask you why you want to support these individuals when the cost is to have an entire suffering class of unfortunate people.
By all means please find it in you to give to those who are discernibly handicapped, but I ask you not to support those who are perfectly capable of acting by their own free will. Consider that if those who are capable of acting on their own free will don’t find their own way out of an unfortunate situation, then their path and the path of their children will likely not be one of sustainability. You must consider this: which person is more likely to be successful in the long term—the person who is given value or the person who earns value? I’m certain that we can agree that the person who earns value will find the most sustainable path; and if we cannot agree upon that, then I ask you—in which world do you live? So if we believe that a person will find the more sustainable path by earning value, rather than taking value and giving no value in return—then by simple extrapolation in the logical and reasonable mind, it is clear that support of the impoverished will create more and enduring poverty; not less. Again, you will ask me what we will do with all of these poor individuals who are presently in such an impoverished state. Then, again, I will ask you if you have not realized that to support them is to maintain an entire and growing class of impoverished.