Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea-party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies.
(source)
Not all of us want a country where the government is the nanny, the government takes care of us. But I think if we're ever going to get out from under a nanny government, we will have to work for it--I mean work hard. And stop accepting handouts we don't need. Start giving voluntarily before we do it by government.
Unfortunately, our system is designed to punish those who have personal philanthropic initiative--you don't get any easy tax exemptions for donating to charities. Sure, you can get deductions but not credits.
What if my brothers and I all decided tomorrow that we wanted to pay our parents for retirement, instead of our 7% social security and other fees? (actually, it's 15%, but half of it is hidden because employers have to pay it--and that inevitably means lower wages to remain competitive). Our parents would probably be far better off if we did that. But it's not an either-or decision. It's a government mandate. I'm definitely in favor of staying out of prison and obeying the law. But it illustrates an important point. For me, at least. YMMV.
Posts
1 comment:
The way I see it, overcoming the welfare state is going to require a fundamental shift in attitudes at all levels of society. To accomplish that, a large-scale discussion of the ethics of charity must take place.
To further that end, let me state what I think are some (certainly not all, and perhaps not even the most significant) of the issues involved.
A major premise for mandatory donations to government welfare programs is that society as a whole suffers when some of its members don't have the means to take care of their basic needs. I accept this premise as true.
The next premise seems to be that many of those in greatest need do not have family or friends who are in a position to help, and that strangers are less likely to know where and when help is needed, and also might not be willing to help. Private charity historically has not been sufficient in all cases to fill the needs of all members of society.
A further (usually unstated) issue involves the social dynamics of giving and receiving. In the hypothetical you posit, one might ask what those who don't have children willing or able to help them are to do when they become unable to support themselves? While few would argue that we have an obligation to care for our families, many might argue that to do so to the exclusion of extending help to non-relations would be to invite a cultural regression into petty tribalism. Private charity, it is feared, would tend to follow a "me and mine first" paradigm.
At this point, the question becomes, can government welfare overcome the perceived deficiencies of private charity (and of course, some would say we're begging the question whether these really are deficiencies)?
The government, it is supposed, is in a position both to assess need and to disburse aid equitably and on a much larger scale than is possible with private charity. In practice, as we well know, government ends up doing a pretty poor job of it. Furthermore, because the hand that helps is remote and dehumanized, and because it helps by taking something from those who have little say in the matter, the ethical responsibilities of both the giver and the receiver that are (or should be) inherent in the act of charity tend to be forgotten more easily. Gratitude turns into a sense of entitlement. Generosity becomes resentment. This transformation does sometimes happen with private charity, it's true, but it's much rarer, because the social relationship between giver and receiver tends to resist it. Can a solution be found for the ethical erosion incurred by government welfare? And if not, is welfare's supposed benefit to society worth the price?
When people voice opposition to the welfare state, so-called progressives often accuse them of selfishness or demand that they come up with a better system before criticizing the one we have. That sort of reaction is an attempt to short-circuit legitimate discourse, which is after all the most civilized means we have for resolving social problems of any kind. And I think no one on either side of the political spectrum would deny that we've got Big Problems with the system as it now exists. So let me admit right now that I have no ready answers. I have a lot of questions. I think exploring those questions is enormously important, and just might lead to better solutions than we currently have, but that aren't yet apparent. But I believe such discoveries can be made only if the discussion goes on.
Post a Comment