Accepting Unemployment insurance compensation

[Mr. Wynand]

Is it moral to take unemployment insurance?

[TLD]

Is it moral to take unemployment insurance?

I say yes. Govt. should not pay for a lot of things, but you contribute to them all and deserve your share back.

[khaight]

Is it moral to take unemployment insurance?

Yes, as long as you oppose its existence. Rand addressed the basic moral issue in her essay "The Question of Scholarships". Capsule summary: The government takes so much wealth from the productive that it is moral to take advantage of any legal opportunity to get some of it back.

[Black Wolf]

Only problem here is that the big business picks up the tabs for unemployment users.

[TLD]

Only problem here is that the big business picks up the tabs for unemployment users.

All businesses do. But then its a Govt. fund that all have a right to.

[VcatoV]

Yes, as long as you oppose its existence. Rand addressed the basic moral issue in her essay "The Question of Scholarships". Capsule summary: The government takes so much wealth from the productive that it is moral to take advantage of any legal opportunity to get some of it back.

Help me if I am incorrect-I do not have the article on hand-but did she not say that it was amoral?

[khaight]

Help me if I am incorrect-I do not have the article on hand-but did she not say that it was amoral?

No. I quote from the article: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships have no right to them; those who oppose them have." This means that, as long as you make clear your opposition to the existence of such programs, one is morally entitled to use them to get back a share of the wealth the welfare state has and will expropriate from you. She goes on to note that "The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance, or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the 'right' to force employers and unwilling coworkers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money -- and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." You have a moral right to your property, which is violated when the government takes it from you by force. You have every right, morally speaking, to use whatever openings the law leaves open to you to reclaim part of what was taken from you.

Ask yourself the opposite question. If taking advantage of public scholarships (or unemployment insurance, or social security) is immoral, that means it harms your life. Given that these institutions exist, in spite of our opposition, how does taking advantage of them make your life worse than not? If we held to the opposite principle, that it is immoral to make use of illegitimate government programs and property, how would we even be able to get to work? The roads are public property. The only 'moral' course would be starving in our houses, which would be an absurdity.

Remember that morality applies to what is within our power of choice. While we can (and should) argue against the existence of welfare-state programs, we cannot simply choose for them to not exist. And as long as they do exist, we have to choose how to deal with them. Rand notes that "Minimizing the financial injury inflicted on you by the welfare-state laws does not constitute support of welfare statism (since the purpose of such laws is to injure you) and is not morally reprehensible. Initiating, advocating or expanding such laws is." She concludes that "So long as financial considerations do not alter or affect your convictions, so long as you fight against welfare statism... and are prepared to give up any of its momentary benefits in exchange for repeal and freedom... you are morally in the clear."

The overall article covers a number of additional issues, including private scholarships, government research grants and the moral principles involved in taking government jobs. It's worth reading in its entirety if you're at all confused about the moral principles involved in these kinds of government interactions.

[flatlander]

No. I quote from the article: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships have no right to them; those who oppose them have." This means that, as long as you make clear your opposition to the existence of such programs, one is morally entitled to use them to get back a share of the wealth the welfare state has and will expropriate from you. She goes on to note that "The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance, or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the 'right' to force employers and unwilling coworkers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money -- and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." You have a moral right to your property, which is violated when the government takes it from you by force. You have every right, morally speaking, to use whatever openings the law leaves open to you to reclaim part of what was taken from you.

Ask yourself the opposite question. If taking advantage of public scholarships (or unemployment insurance, or social security) is immoral, that means it harms your life. Given that these institutions exist, in spite of our opposition, how does taking advantage of them make your life worse than not? If we held to the opposite principle, that it is immoral to make use of illegitimate government programs and property, how would we even be able to get to work? The roads are public property. The only 'moral' course would be starving in our houses, which would be an absurdity.

Remember that morality applies to what is within our power of choice. While we can (and should) argue against the existence of welfare-state programs, we cannot simply choose for them to not exist. And as long as they do exist, we have to choose how to deal with them. Rand notes that "Minimizing the financial injury inflicted on you by the welfare-state laws does not constitute support of welfare statism (since the purpose of such laws is to injure you) and is not morally reprehensible. Initiating, advocating or expanding such laws is." She concludes that "So long as financial considerations do not alter or affect your convictions, so long as you fight against welfare statism... and are prepared to give up any of its momentary benefits in exchange for repeal and freedom... you are morally in the clear."

The overall article covers a number of additional issues, including private scholarships, government research grants and the moral principles involved in taking government jobs. It's worth reading in its entirety if you're at all confused about the moral principles involved in these kinds of government interactions.

I agree, and could not have said it better.

[VcatoV]

No. I quote from the article: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships have no right to them; those who oppose them have." This means that, as long as you make clear your opposition to the existence of such programs, one is morally entitled to use them to get back a share of the wealth the welfare state has and will expropriate from you. She goes on to note that "The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance, or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the 'right' to force employers and unwilling coworkers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money -- and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." You have a moral right to your property, which is violated when the government takes it from you by force. You have every right, morally speaking, to use whatever openings the law leaves open to you to reclaim part of what was taken from you.

Thanks for the quote! It is refreshing .

[khaight]

Thanks for the quote! It is refreshing .

Rand usually is. I'm always amazed at the clarity, precision, depth and disturbing prescience of her writing. It's like standing on a mountaintop while having your brain scrubbed out with steel wool. And on that mixed yet unsettling simile, I shall go to bed.

Edited April 27, 2010 by khaight

[Dante]

Ask yourself the opposite question. If taking advantage of public scholarships (or unemployment insurance, or social security) is immoral, that means it harms your life. Given that these institutions exist, in spite of our opposition, how does taking advantage of them make your life worse than not? If we held to the opposite principle, that it is immoral to make use of illegitimate government programs and property, how would we even be able to get to work? The roads are public property. The only 'moral' course would be starving in our houses, which would be an absurdity.

Well, the most common response to this by people who oppose the welfare state is that there are negative psychological repercussions associated with taking actions which you perceive to be parasitic. If you're disposed to view some of the points discussed above as rationalizations, aimed at waving away hypocrisy, then having to resort to taking government handouts is seen as shameful, demeaning, and a betrayal of one's values. Man must attend to both his physical and spiritual health, and not all actions which increase his wealth are good for him in the long term, when one takes account of spiritual effects.

[Mr. Wynand]

Personally I have taken unemployment benefits for months, but recently I got a job which satisfies my material wants. Even with this job, I still qualified for the benefits. Even though I am justified in taking the money, I really don't see the point, especially when I can be happy with solely the sweat of my brow.

I may be wrong in my reasoning but I don't think that taking the "free" money will give me any dignity. If a dignified person is someone who values and respects himself, where does his self-value and self-respect originate? It can only be from himself, and taking wealth (that you earned but you must be unemployed to receive) isn't a way that you can build yourself into who you would like to be, at least financially and career wise.

[TLD]

Personally I have taken unemployment benefits for months, but recently I got a job which satisfies my material wants. Even with this job, I still qualified for the benefits. Even though I am justified in taking the money, I really don't see the point, especially when I can be happy with solely the sweat of my brow.

I may be wrong in my reasoning but I don't think that taking the "free" money will give me any dignity. If a dignified person is someone who values and respects himself, where does his self-value and self-respect originate? It can only be from himself, and taking wealth (that you earned but you must be unemployed to receive) isn't a way that you can build yourself into who you would like to be, at least financially and career wise.

Taking the money when unable to get work is moral.

After having a job, you should no longer be eligible - given the initial intent of the law. That is the line I would draw as well.

[khaight]

After having a job, you should no longer be eligible - given the initial intent of the law. That is the line I would draw as well.

I have some sympathy for the idea of taking the extra money and donating it to ARI. It isn't like the government is going to give it back to its original owners if you don't accept it, and at least you'd be using it to help defend the rights of those victimized by the welfare state. There may be a parallel here to Ragnar.

[khaight]

It can only be from himself, and taking wealth (that you earned but you must be unemployed to receive) isn't a way that you can build yourself into who you would like to be, at least financially and career wise.

I really don't follow the logic here. Obviously you won't advance yourself career wise if you're unemployed, but that's due to the unemployment, not due to your accepting unemployment benefits from the welfare state. And you will we better off financially, ceteris paribus, if you accept the benefits than if you don't. Accepting the benefits only has a negative impact on your self-esteem if doing so is an act of parasitism or dependence, and as Rand's argument indicates it isn't. Taking advantage of opportunities under the law to reclaim your property from the welfare state isn't hypocrisy, it's self-defense.

Suppose that, instead of unemployment insurance, the government created an 'unemployment tax credit' that someone who was unemployed for more than 3 month in a year could claim on their tax return. If you had been unemployed for the requisite period, would you claim the tax credit? If so, how is that morally different from unemployment insurance? If not, do you apply the same standards to other tax credits and deductions?

[SapereAude]

I have some sympathy for the idea of taking the extra money and donating it to ARI. It isn't like the government is going to give it back to its original owners if you don't accept it, and at least you'd be using it to help defend the rights of those victimized by the welfare state. There may be a parallel here to Ragnar.

Unfortunately that logic doesn't ring true.

The employer's rates go up as more money is dispensed.

By taking it when you don't "need" it you are driving up costs on the employer.

[khaight]

The employer's rates go up as more money is dispensed. By taking it when you don't "need" it you are driving up costs on the employer.

But why sacrifice yourself for your ex-employer? The government is violating your rights and your ex-employer's rights. Why are you morally obligated to act for your ex-employer's benefit rather than your own, particularly if you oppose the existence of the welfare state and your ex-employer (most likely) does not?

[SapereAude]

But why sacrifice yourself for your ex-employer? The government is violating your rights and your ex-employer's rights. Why are you morally obligated to act for your ex-employer's benefit rather than your own, particularly if you oppose the existence of the welfare state and your ex-employer (most likely) does not?

Your statement which I was responding to didn't say anything about self sacrificing on behalf of an employer.

Your statement was about continuing to take something "extra" to give to a cause you believe in.

I (as someone who has to pay unemployment insurance on my employees) realise that aside from what the government takes initially that for every claim made, and for the duration of the claims MORE money is taken from me than otherwise would be. You may not be aware of this- that you are advocating taking "extra" for a donation to your cause but that it doesn't come just from the government- your employer will be penalised above and beyond the tax.

[DavidOdden]

But why sacrifice yourself for your ex-employer? The government is violating your rights and your ex-employer's rights. Why are you morally obligated to act for your ex-employer's benefit rather than your own, particularly if you oppose the existence of the welfare state and your ex-employer (most likely) does not?

By taking unemployment payments, which you do not have a right to, you are not getting back that which you paid (unlike Social Security, for example). The government is acting as a conduit to take money by force from your employer and give it to you. To argue that the ex-employer "most likely" supports the welfare state and thus deserves the initiation of force is a dishonest argument. There is a direct causal relation between you receiving welfare payments and the government's use of force to collect unemployment money from the employer, in that by collecting payments, you bring about those conditions that result in the government using more force (taking more money) from the specific employer.

It is like the government is going to give back the money to the original owners if you decline unemployment. That comes about by the government not taking the money in the first place. Unemployment is not generic taxation, it is directly caused by your former employees filing claims, and by filing a claim, you are directly causing the government to take money from an employer which it would not otherwise take. This is, quite literally, the initiation of force: the government acts as the hired gun who implements the force that you initiate.

[khaight]

By taking unemployment payments, which you do not have a right to, you are not getting back that which you paid (unlike Social Security, for example).

There's an assumption of symmetry here that I don't think is valid. If the government takes money from me by force, I'm morally entitled to get money back from the government. But that moral right doesn't restrict me to getting money back the same way it was taken -- I can get more from Social Security than I paid in to Social Security, because the government also exacted money from me in a myriad of other ways.

To argue that the ex-employer "most likely" supports the welfare state and thus deserves the initiation of force is a dishonest argument.

But that isn't my argument. The employer does not deserve to be the victim of force -- but he is, nevertheless, and I can't choose for that not to be the case. But the fact that my reclaiming money exacted from me by the government leads to the government exacting money from others by force is not my responsibility. The government, by initiating force, has set up a conflict between the interests of me and my ex-employer. The responsibility for that conflict lies with the government. Given that the conflict exists, then, the question is whether I should pursue my interests or those of my ex-employer. As an egoist, I choose my own interests.

[DavidOdden]

But that isn't my argument. The employer does not deserve to be the victim of force -- but he is, nevertheless, and I can't choose for that not to be the case.

That's the source of your error and our disagreement. Your claiming a right to post-termination compensation causes the government to use force against the employer, which it would not otherwise use. In my book, that consitutes the initiation of force. To be sure, the government has made it easy for you to initiate force.

[khaight]

That's the source of your error and our disagreement. Your claiming a right to post-termination compensation causes the government to use force against the employer, which it would not otherwise use.

I agree that this is the root of our disagreement, but (unsurprisingly) I don't consider it an error.

Remember that the government doesn't have any wealth of its own; everything it has it took from someone by force. And it doesn't just take that wealth and stick it in a warehouse; it gives it to other people. Any time I manage to claw back some of my wealth from the government, the government has to take it from someone else. That's inherent in the setup -- it's the conflict of interest created by introducing force into human relationships. I don't claim a right to post-termination compensation per se; I claim a right to compensation for the wealth taken from me by government by any legal means possible.

[Jake_Ellison]

By taking unemployment payments, which you do not have a right to, you are not getting back that which you paid (unlike Social Security, for example). The government is acting as a conduit to take money by force from your employer and give it to you. To argue that the ex-employer "most likely" supports the welfare state and thus deserves the initiation of force is a dishonest argument. There is a direct causal relation between you receiving welfare payments and the government's use of force to collect unemployment money from the employer, in that by collecting payments, you bring about those conditions that result in the government using more force (taking more money) from the specific employer.

It is like the government is going to give back the money to the original owners if you decline unemployment. That comes about by the government not taking the money in the first place. Unemployment is not generic taxation, it is directly caused by your former employees filing claims, and by filing a claim, you are directly causing the government to take money from an employer which it would not otherwise take. This is, quite literally, the initiation of force: the government acts as the hired gun who implements the force that you initiate.

I see it a little differently. The law is a form of regulation on the employer-employee relationship. In other words, when I make a contract with my employer, both parties are aware of the law and how it affects our contract, by default. My employer is, by default, obligated to pay me after he fires me, if I don't find work.

It is not like I am allowed to suggest to my employer that my contract not be dependent on that law (as in promise, in writing, that I will not file for unemployment if fired), and therefor give my employer the option to not account for the cost of firing me, from the start. (which would make my services to my employer far more appealing, probably allowing me to ask for a higher salary while I'm working, not to mention that it would allow the unemployed to find short term employment very fast).

If I did have the right to avoid this law, by contract, I would. But since I don't, allowing myself to be penalized by it while I'm employed, but not benefiting while I'm not, would be wrong.

[bluey]

In Canada, a certain amount of each paycheque you receive goes towards employment insurance. You can only claim it if you've been laid off or take a qualified leave; you can't get it back if, say, you have been working and contributing for 10 years and now want to take a few months off. I'd think the majority of working people would pay in more than they would ever have need to take out. For example, I've been paying into the system since I got my first part-time job at around age 15 and the only time I would get any of it back is if I ever have an official maternity leave period. Even if I took two or three such leaves, it would likely amount to less than what I've paid to just this program over the years, not to mention future contributions. Does it work differently in the US, is there no mandatory employment insurance premium?

[DavidOdden]

Does it work differently in the US, is there no mandatory employment insurance premium?

It is different. For one thing, it is not a national system, it is run by each state. I do not pay an employment insurance premium, and I do not recall paying any employment insurance premium in Washington. Thus I have not been "paying into the system".