BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Libetarians vs. Lefties - Welfare provision

  
 
illmatic
09:01 / 10.09.03
This was orginally a response to raelianautopsy's comments in the "Mbeki response to anti-capitalists" thread but I as this seems to be a key issue that divides right-libetarians from leftwingers, I thought it was worthy of it's own thread.

"I think I might be right in saying that this is the key issue that divides right-libertarian and leftists. By way of background, most British leftists have some degree of emotional attachment to our public services. Despite their failings, they’re popularly considered a good thing overall, in some ways a triumph of post WW2 reconstruction, particularly the provision of education and healthcare. In some ways their viewed over here as a kind of social glue or a “common wealth” run for the collective good. It’s one of the sticks with which the British Labour Party has managed to beat the Tories with – in the voting public’s mind, the former have a much more demonstrable commitment to our public services.

Welfare, in terms of the provision of unemployment benefits and housing benefits is perhaps the most problematic area here. I’m in something of a quandary here because I find myself agreeing with you insofar as I think living continuously on welfare culture does drag people down – they adjust to a much lower standard of living (arguably detrimental to physical and mental health) and it limits aspiration. However where I disagree with you is that you then shift the responsibility back on them for raising their own standards – in a sense this seems to absolve society of it’s wider responsibilities (and brings to mind Margaret Thatcher’s famous phrase there’s no such thing as society, only individuals and families) This is what really pissed me off about another poster (Leap) a few months back – all his comments about welfare provision could be read as attacks on the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society (ie. single mothers, asylum seekers etc). If you are in that sort of position to what degree can you “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” etc. With your example of the guy refusing to get a job ‘cos his rents so cheap – what if there are no jobs in his area because of an chronic lack of investment (probably because big business has shut down all the factories to head for the third world and cheap labour)? Surely society has a role to play as well in providing opportunities and planning to make sure individuals make the best of them?


Also, in my mind the retraction of welfare provision in the eighties under Reagan and Thatcher, and/or the current tax cuts that the Bush administration is implementing aren’t done with anything like encouraging this self reliance in mind – they seem simply to be about delivering financial benefits to their core constituents. Be interested to hear your views on the round of post-9/11 tax cuts, many of which were retrospective – I can’t think of this as anything other than the reallocation of money from the poor (in the form of welfare) to the rich.

Be interested to know your thoughts or see any other comments. "

Perhaps we can broaden this to a genral discussion on the pros and cons of state welfare provison.
 
 
Nematode
09:44 / 10.09.03
I notice you equate welfare provision soley with the left. Whilst this is latterly true of British politics, there exists a strand of Burkean conservative thought that promotes the idea that the rich have a duty to look after the poor both from a selfish point of view [if we don't they'll rise up] and in the sense that as architects and helmsmen of socety it is the right thing to do. Evidence of this philanthropic attitude can be seen all over this country in the very large number of victorian public buildings built with private patronage. It is only in the last few years that the laissez faire posse have taken control under Mrs Thatcher etc with the support of the corporations [who aren't apparently able to see further than invester dividends and couldn't be described as the helmsmen and architects of anything very much.]
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:20 / 10.09.03
Well yeah, but that's private philanthropy, isn't it, which is different to state welfare provision - it's not regulated, nor is such provision guaranteed, but it is subject to the generosity and whim of private citizens. I wouldn't characterise it as particularly Burkean either - you can see it in the mid-eighteenth century in the foundation of the Magdalen and Foundling hospitals - but that's just a minor nit-picking point...
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:29 / 10.09.03
I think it is worth saying (even though it gets said pretty often) that we don't have full employment in developed countries. Actually, our governments don't want full employment, since the accepted wisdom is that there is a tradeoff between employment and inflation.

So, welfare bashing is a favourite of the right not because they want to encourage people to get work and reduce unemployment, but to demoralise and demonise a certain part of society. Sure, you can argue that those who work hard won't end up at the bottom, though the underprivileged tend to have to work a hell of a lot harder than many of us to get anywhere. The treatment of the unemployed also serves as a good reminder of what will happen if we lose our jobs - quite useful when dealing with Trade Unions.
 
 
illmatic
10:33 / 10.09.03
I think it's still a good point though - the provision of private philanthropy/charity as an antidote to societies ills was exacly what was advocated by Leap previously (not that I want to restart the Leap Wars *hides*).

I've no idea if he counts as a Burkean conservative or not but I've always had a soft spot Michael Helestine one of the more "patrican" Tories, who, IIRC opposed the abolition of the minimum wage. (Incidentally what's the US situation and the Libertarian position with regards to a minimum wage?)
 
 
illmatic
10:38 / 10.09.03
Last point intended in response to KKC's - I do find the notion of this kind of philanthropy interesting as it does show certain sections of the Right's response to their social obligations, ie. they engage with them, but without the surrender of control / "attack on personal freedom" involved in paying taxes to central government.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:09 / 10.09.03
Yeah - the other thing it does, of course (as several people said to dear Leap) is enable the rich to determine who is and who is not a 'deserving' poor person, i.e. what kind of behaviour is appropriate for those who receive charity. The right (n.b. not necessarily the libertarian right) has often been charatcerised as economically liberal but socially prescriptive, and this would certainly be one way in which this could be practised.

Whereas, technically speaking, state welfare provision is directed by a government representing the whole body of the nation... which makes it, I suppose a more impersonal system. But as I said before, I think I'd rather have an impersonal system which cannot discriminate against me or other people on subjective grounds (i.e. whether I am 'feckless' or not, etc.) That's not quite what we have at the moment, and I dare say that if Blunkett gets his way with these ID cards it will be even less so - thanks to 'profiling' - but I think it's a better and fairer system for everyone than private philanthropy.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:51 / 10.09.03
That's where it gets sticky, though, isn't it? First, because the impersonality of it also allows it to be monstrous; situations where a human would simply say 'okay, you can have the money' and the system says 'you aren't elligible' are not uncommon. Second, because there are behaviours one would want to proscribe, and others which should probably be prescribed. There's a tension between an impartial system and a fair system, and also between a fair system and a desirable system.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:17 / 10.09.03
Well, some of the latter would be (technically speaking) addressed by the fact that the body deciding which behaviours would be proscribed would be the elected representative of the nation, blah blah fishcakes I know, but... The former is a problem, I admit, but I think a less pressing one than the potential exclusion of or discrimination against large groups of people who have no recourse at all against the discriminators. BTW, slightly hazy as to hwat exactly you're thinking of there - could you clarify?

Also I have never heard it said that state welfare provision necessarily excludes private philanthropy.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:08 / 10.09.03
Oh, I was thinking hazy, but: there's always an issue about people on the demarcation line. You get a given benefit if your income is below a certain level, but if you get a job or someone gives you money, you instantly cease to qualify and overall you come off worse etc. - I don't know where the hotspots are this legislative season, but I imagine there are a few. Welfare experts - and opponents - always know...

I also have an innate distrust of the equation which says 'system=fairness'. I tend to think that systems exist to prevent individuals having to become involved with and make judgements about specific cases. The responsibility is off-loaded onto a rule-book - hence the famous 'Jobsworth' hat from "That's Life". It's something I'm trying to get my head round.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:17 / 10.09.03
Systems aren't inherently fair, but without a system you probably have almost no chance of fairness. Necessary but not sufficient, and all that. Systems depersonalise, sure, but this is both positive and negative. Largely positive, if you want a large scale safety net.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:37 / 10.09.03
I'm not sure that you have no chance of fairness without a system - it depends, inevitably, on context. I think it's also possible to generate a self-organising and self-regulating system of individuals who do not refer to a rulebook - system without 'expert systems'.

I've come back around to a long-held concern of mine about the results of splitting personal and professional convictions - we demand that our civil servants and even corporate CEOs adopt a set of professional priorities which overrule any personal ethical qualms they may have about the courses of action they are asked to select from. They internalise an abstract system which makes no concession to borederline cases or exceptions, save through whatever permitted reflexivity is built in. Aside from the obvious inevitable unfairnesses generated by that situation, I worry that we create a class of managers who are encouraged to a kind of professional Dissociative Identity Disorder...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
17:03 / 10.09.03
(bit woolly but a few thoughts)

Another implication of prioritising private philanthropy over state welfare is to suggest that if you're rich, you *should* help those on the other end of the scale.

Which I don't agree with, neccessarily. Or more accurately, I guess I mean that there's huge incoherence between much of what our society does to validate money-making, individualistic capitalist endeavour, and then expecting people to go all 'collective responsibility'.

And that this encourages a situation where private philanthropy is not only, and sometimes not primarily, about helping people but is more about the giver, social modelling, choice over who to help, notions which fit much more snugly with the models that have earned such people their money in the first place. Which, as it's their money, made by them, is on level, fair enough. But can lead to the concepts of 'deserving vs. undeserving' that people have described.

And as people have said, promoting a welfare state model doesn't negate philanthropy. it's not an either/or

Whereas as others have said, state welfare is a product of a belief in societal responsiblity, regarding society via a familial model where the stronger take care of the weaker.

Illmatic, I think alot of your objections to welfare would be sorted by overhauling *how* it functions, rather than scrapping it totally. Though I'm not sure if it's at all realistic to hope it'll go this way...

As it stands, the UK welfare state is a halfway-house institution, in ethos and practice. It grew out of a conviction that it was our duty as a society to provide well fare, a bearable standard of living, for all our members. And that members who could provide this for themselves should share the cost of providing it for those who couldn't. And that this process enriches everyone who takes part in it.

However it's been viewed by successive governments, a shifting societial view as a burden, duty. This radically affects how the system(which as Sam Vega notes, is not a transparent unchanging entity) regards itself, how policy is interpreted, how the workers administer it, and has vast effects on how the beneficiaries of this system are constituted/feel.

So we're at a point where it's not a commitment to the familial model but retains the idea of one-sided giving, which=burden.


mind you, i'll admit utterly to some old lefty emotional bias.

Oh, and personal knowledge that were it not for this creaking, paternalistic, depressing-as-fuck-to-live under system I dread to think what would have happened to me. I agree, it means a life that comes packaged with demoralising, stultifying side-effects.

But its certainly provided my only possible option to live a bearable adult life. So in some ways it has liberating qualities. And I know, personally, and through my work, of many people this applies to far more than me.
 
 
raelianautopsy
23:36 / 10.09.03
I guess I should say something since I effectively started this thread. This all seems a lot more about British politics and I know much more about American politics, but I'll throw some comments scattered around.

Illmatic, at first you said both welfare harms peoples aspiration, but also that society has a role to play in helping people. Which is it? Should gov't have less of a role, and private charities do more? I'd agree because leftist gov't(which is just as arrogant and condescending as Victiorian charities anyways)wastes tons more money and is far more corrupt in these things than the philanthropy-type welfare. And Bush tax cuts have an element of corporate interesthood, but it is not giving them the peoples money, it is just taking less of the rich's money. But he refuses to cut spending anyways so it really doesn't make any sense, Bush has the biggest government since LBJ. Actually neoconservatives do tolerate welfare as a way of controlling people, at least they admit it.

And I am not trying to be cruel to the needy by shifting blame to them, but an attitude of self-responsibility in life is neccessary to fix these problems.

The bottom line for me is the quote, "if the gov't has the power to give you everything you need, it has the power to take away everything you need."
 
 
raelianautopsy
23:55 / 10.09.03
One more thing: somebody asked what the libertarian position on minimum wage is. Officially they are against it and any government business regulation. I disagree with the hard-core libertarians on this though. An argument could be made that if all society was evolved on libertarian capitolism than by now the economy would be so good you wouldn't need minimum wage laws, but if you were to get rid of them tomorrow all the businesses would immeadiately start ripping off their employees. I do think the federal gov't regulating that is unconstitutional though, it should be a state's rights thing.

I am not a total evil capitolst though, but I probibly sound it compared to you. I support unions when the gov't does not intervene, I think that is great example of capitolism regulating itself. Also I think gov't regulation of business is neccessary only when regulating so that the competition-system of capitolism can work good. Such as anti-trust monopoly laws, insider trading laws, and the sort. I dont like Ann Rand or globalist free trade. But free trade is a complicated thing, there are both side to it. If you own a business and you want to buy something from a foreigner, why should the gov't intervene? But what would make more sense is for the country to just say we will free trade with anyone who will free trade with us (which isn't even how it is anyways) instead of WTO, NAFTA, etc. dissasembeling the sovereign status of independent nations.

But I'm still against welfare.
 
 
illmatic
08:27 / 11.09.03
RA: I certainly don’t want to stereotype you as an evil capitalist or accuse you or being unnecessarily cruel or whatever. I appreciate the exchange of views. In response to your first question “you said both welfare harms peoples aspiration, but also that society has a role to play in helping people. Which is it?” - I’d say both – this may some a bit evasive of me but I don’t think we resolve the question by collapsing it into an either/or dichotomy.

Yeah, I definitely think there are negative effects of welfare, especially when it settles into a kind of “dole culture”/subsistence living, especially when this is the only option people have open to them. However I don’t think we solve this by the wholesale retraction of welfare – the potential effects of this horrify me. I don’t think this would cause people to fall back on their own resourcefulness, I think instead it would make for a much more brutal society, and bring us a lot closer to desperation and poverty experienced in the developing world. I saw the effects of a partial retraction of welfare in the UK in the ‘eighties, and one of it’s most noticeable effects to me was a huge growth in the homeless. Not a positive outcome in my book.

What did you think of my point about society having a duty to help when local economies and industries collapse, perhaps as a result of globalisation? Actually, in this example, I was thinking of a lot of the former mining towns in the North of England when I wrote this example and it’s arguably the Thatcher Government destroyed this industry to break the power of the unions. (The NUM – National Union of Mineworkers – were the largest and most influential union when she came to power – not 100% on that, but I think it’s correct). To say that those unemployed in these circumstances should fall back on their own self-determination seems to me to be missing part of the equation. I don’t claim to know what the solution is btw, I’m just banging out some thoughts.

I’d also be interested to hear your response to Lurid’s point above re. structural unemployment as a counter to inflation – to you does this fall under “neo-con’s tolerating welfare as a way of controlling people” as you say?
 
 
illmatic
08:39 / 11.09.03
Duh... forgot to add that I think any need for retraction of welfare disappears if there's sufficient investment/job creation in areas where "welfare culture" is having a negative effect - either of a Keynesian "New Deal" type which is probably less acceptable to you, or through encouragment of business investment, which is probably hard in these globalised times. Either way there have to be opportunities there for people to take advantage of, and someone has to create or lead on them - it's not entirely an issue of individual self- etermination
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:26 / 11.09.03
I think it's also possible to generate a self-organising and self-regulating system of individuals who do not refer to a rulebook - system without 'expert systems'. - Sam

Ideally, yes. But I don't think that you really believe this. How many people have double standards in demanding central services and tax cuts. It one of the big political lies that much of the electorate is complicit in. How many people justify not giving to individuals because they prefer to give to charities? And how many do?

We always prioritise our needs well above those of others so that philanthropy mainly works as a gift from those who can give with little relative cost to themselves. And people would always compare what they personally give to what others give. Systems and uniformity are imperfect solutions to many of these concerns. Imperfect as they are, they are all we have, IMO.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:30 / 11.09.03
Ideally, yes. But I don't think that you really believe this. How many people have double standards in demanding central services and tax cuts. It one of the big political lies that much of the electorate is complicit in. How many people justify not giving to individuals because they prefer to give to charities? And how many do.

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying we can do without laws, I'm saying that the abstract systems which are used by the civil service are often inflexible, slow to recognise crisis, and slow to react in crisis. The constituitive rules which are the Welfare system in this country are not what they should be. The software is bad, basically. I believe it's possible to produce a system which is far more responsive and better able to organise itself to produce results which are fair and compassionate. However, the difficulty is that political agendas are frequently imposed on the system from above, and it is redesigned to achieve something else - not fairness or compassion by the statistical appearance of both for political purposes.

The old problem comes around again in a new form - democracy is predicated on an informed and rational electorate. Just as free market deregulation is fatal to a nation's economy unless it already has strong indigenous industry, so there are difficulties with having an electorate composed of people who are qualified to vote simply by age and residence or nationality. That's not to suggest that we should limit voting, just that we have to acknowledge there are problems, as well as freedoms, that come with broader elibigility. A great part of our electorate makes a habit of demanding the impossible two months in every five years, and then going politically apathetic for much of the remainder.

Systems and uniformity are imperfect solutions to many of these concerns. Imperfect as they are, they are all we have, IMO.

That does not mean they are all that's possible. And the assumption of uniformity inherent in the notion that uniformity equates with fairness (read, in truth, 'normalcy') is frequently a cause of inequality.

If we are unable to vest sufficient faith in the individuals who are at the sharp end of the welfare system to distribute extra funds to address inequalities, we need a system which can do so. Either's fine with me - but there has to be a system for making exceptions to the rules in cases which don't fit them. Since 'hard cases make bad law', we need a second-tier which deals with hard cases individually.
 
 
raelianautopsy
20:06 / 11.09.03
I never heard of conservative thought saying that unemployment helps keep inflation low, but that seems like something rich Republicans might say. But even if it did, wouldn't it be more acclible for that system to work on unemployed rich, who have more money to lose so less inflation?

It isn't that there should be no charity to help the poor, it is that there should be a lot less to help self-suffiency. And also if taxes didn't go to that more people would be likely to donate anyways. Isn't that a pessimistic look at human nature to say that if the gov't did not help people no one would and everyone would starve? I don't know about Thatcher, but in America welfare and homelessness seem to go up exponentially, and when Gingrich and Clinton cut welfare in the 90's people did in fact become more self-relliant without massive poverty.

I don't think anyone, or at least most, really thinks I'm evil, I'm just being sarcastic.
 
  
Add Your Reply