Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Selfish Welfare?

Rate this topic


Philosophiser

Recommended Posts

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have a simple question about the Objectivist political philosophy. It is my understanding that only pure Laissez Faire capitalism is promoted. However, doesn't this gird against the principle of selfish interest?

Let me elaborate- a welfare system that takes care of those who truly deserve to be helped- namely those who through no fault of their own were debilitated in some way- would be in the selfish interest of everyone. Why? Because there is always the chance that such things could happen to any of us, and it provides us with comfort and security to know that there is a responsible safetynet if we really need one, and in fact helps us to work harder since we know that- in the event some catastrophe or sudden impoverishment beyond our control were to occur, we would have something to give us a leg up to get back on our feet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophiser, I have an initial suggestion: You might want to ask a moderator to change the title of this topic. A title, especially a two-level title, is designed to help readers know what the subject is. A title serves a function similar to that of a definition: It, in part, locates an idea (topic) in relation to other ideas (topics). A main title can be the "genus," so to speak, and the subtitle the "differentia."

For example, you might make the title of this topic something like:

Welfare

In one's rational self-interest?

I am assuming the subject of your thread is not the relationship between truth and simplicity of questions.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Burgess' suggestion.

To answer the question, the exclusive purpose of government, according to the Objectivist political philosophy, is the protection of rights. Thus, an Objectivist government seeks to ban the initiation of force from human relationships.

The only system of government that does this is Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.

Any other good or service can and should be provided by the voluntary actions of the free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Burgess' suggestion.

To answer the question, the exclusive purpose of government, according to the Objectivist political philosophy, is the protection of rights. Thus, an Objectivist government seeks to ban the initiation of force from human relationships.

The only system of government that does this is Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

Any other good or service can and should be provided by the voluntary actions of the free market.

Inspector,

I think thats a rather weighty assumption. In the Laissez Faire system of the 19th century, many destitute people were left without aide, and some even starved to death in the most civilized of nations- including orphans and children.

As far as changing the title, I'm certainly open to it. Perhaps the moderator will change it to something more appropriate.

Edited by Philosophiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the Laissez Faire system of the 19th century"

Where protection of individual rights against the initiation of force did not exist, or was not effective...

mrocktor

I will submit that perhaps insurance would be an effective substitute, but my point here is that I see really no difference between that and a constitutionally imposed and effective welfare system that had serious requirements in order to qualify- that you had to be debilitated through no fault of your own, and that a facts and circumstances analysis by competent qualified professionals would be conducted to determine this. In addition, the administration would require serious and qualified proof of sincere effort in become self sufficient once more.

If this kind of welfare system were actually written into the constitution, with definitive statements setting out the limitations of the system so as to most enhance and protect the independence and rights of every man- it would perhaps be more effective than an insurance system which wouldn't capture everyone in its safetynet, including orphans and those who have not yet learned in their youth to be self responsible and fully developed human beings.

Edited by Philosophiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that you had to be debilitated through no fault of your own

It may not be your fault, but it definitely isn't mine either... Why should I be burdened with your welfare? Your argument, that I could be in need of it one day as well, doesn't hold with me. By the same argument, I could get hit by a bus and die tomorrow, never to get any benefit from the commie scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

I think thats a rather weighty assumption. In the Laissez Faire system of the 19th century, many destitute people were left without aide, and some even starved to death in the most civilized of nations- including orphans and children.

I will agree that it is weighty, in that its implications are myriad. But from where I'm sitting, it isn't an assumption, but a very well-reasoned fact. It will only make sense, however, with an understanding of the Objectivist ethics.

What level of familiarity do you have with those? (Your comment about orphans suggests a very limited one, but I will let you answer for yourself)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that you are forced to pay for the welfare even if you don't benefit. How's that in your self-interest? I understand your idea that since you don't know if you, say, get hit by a truck and end up as a vegetable. Yes, that's horrible. And it's even more horrible if you cannot pay for medication and sustenance. I completely agree. But why does that give you the right to impose your judgement on other people. You don't have the right to another person's life, even if you would really benefit him. It's his life, not yours. It is the most fundamental right he has. Once you give that up, even a bit, you lose way more than the possiblility of being left alone after a car accident. That accident might happen and it is in fact very very seldom. Your system steals the most fundamental right from every single person for something that private insurance and private charity could easily handle. You just cannot make one man suffer for the problems of another even if that problem wasn't that other one's fault. It also isn't the first one's. That bad things happening to innocent people is a bad thing, but it is natural. It just happens. You can't destroy bad luck. It happens. But if you then artificially try to distribute bad luck to those who could have lived without, this can't be considered moral. You can help these people, yes, and I encourage this. But you can't steal to finance your benevolence. It is an honorable idea on the surface, yes, and it is motivated by a well-meaning feeling. But all to often the opposite of a good thing is a good intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument, that I could be in need of it one day as well, doesn't hold with me.

Indeed, and if you did want protection from such events, you could purchase insurance. Actually, such insurance DOES exist today (even with the welfare state to discourage it): my credit card company has offered a program where I pay a small monthly fee, and if I become unemployed, I don't have to make payments to the card.

And if you desire protection for your children, purchase life insurance. If you desire protection for other peoples' children, start a soup kitchen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think two issues are being discussed together in this thread:

  • the initial proposition that a government type of insurance scheme was selfish,
  • the idea that such a scheme would help those who would otherwise be destitute.

Both issues are worthy of discussion in their own right. For ease of discussion, I suggest focussing on one at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capital idea, SoftwareNerd!

What would you like the focus to be, then, Philosophiser?

It looks like something happened to my last post so I will try this again:

I think it would be best to move this forum in the following direction. I think we've pretty much handled the intrastate welfare issue through something like an insurance programme. The only problem of course is that this would not extend to destitute orphans, who while perhaps able to survive through charity, would nevertheless live very unproductive lives that would not contribute to the society at all. And this extends the discussion into another realm which I now digress on and which perhaps can become the focus of this forum- namely- is a welfare system able not only to provide us with the security that we require for ourselves in the event of an outlandish catastrophe, but is it also able to provide us with an actually more productive society? Here is the hypothetical:

Take Africa. We all know that it is a very poor yet very resource rich continent, and the main theories for its lack of development have obviously to do with its often tyrannical and inefficient regime system. Even so.... the question for us is would us helping Africa benefit us? Lets say we leave Africa alone and let it fend for itself without any social aide whatsoever, what happens? The people remain poor, many people die of starvation, many will not afford the medications necessary to cure otherwise easily curable diseases, and much inefficiency and instability will remain on the continent.

BUT- what if we do use the kind of welfare system already posited above (and this extends to the intradomestic orphan situation too). Namely a highly efficient and effectively internationally administered welfare system. First we would military change hostile and inefficient regimes. Then, we would develop a very specifically directed welfare system that would focus on basic necessities and then education. How does this benefit US (we here in the United States)? How does this serve our own selfish interest. Well for one thing terrorism would probably be reduced. But its more to it than that. PRICES for products would drop, because supply for the kinds of products we Westerns demand would increase. More corporations from Africa would compete with corporations at home to increase supply and drive down prices, as competition and international integration coincide to produce a stable international economic system. In addition, an educated Africa would give people who have intelligence opportunities they would not otherwise have had- resulting in more inventions, more devices, more things that enhance all of our lives- all because we gave them a welfare boost. In the end then, the argument could be made that we would be BETTER OFF for the international welfare programme than without it!

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

I think thats a rather weighty assumption. In the Laissez Faire system of the 19th century, many destitute people were left without aide, and some even starved to death in the most civilized of nations- including orphans and children.

Where was this laissez-faire? How did it mean starvation for the poor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will submit that perhaps insurance would be an effective substitute, but my point here is that I see really no difference between that and a constitutionally imposed and effective welfare system that had serious requirements in order to qualify- that you had to be debilitated through no fault of your own, and that a facts and circumstances analysis by competent qualified professionals would be conducted to determine this. In addition, the administration would require serious and qualified proof of sincere effort in become self sufficient once more.
The difference between a voluntary insurance program and a "constitutionally imposed and effective welfare system" is the element of force. Under the former, individuals would voluntarily fund the system, while under the latter the government would fund it at the point of a gun. There is an extensive and well-financed network of private charities and religious institutions in this country. They do an excellent job of helping people in need and they tend to be very good at determining who really deserves help and who doesn't. If the government got out of the business of redistributing income and reduced our tax burden, perhaps more people would be willing to voluntarily support worthy charities.

If this kind of welfare system were actually written into the constitution, with definitive statements setting out the limitations of the system so as to most enhance and protect the independence and rights of every man.....
(emphasis added) How could a welfare system possibly protect every man's "independence and rights"? You need to re-examine your definitions of both terms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be best to examine the exact nature of a welfare system in order to continue this discussion.

Let's say there are two individuals, John and Sarah. John is a subsistance hunter/gatherer, and Sarah is confined to a wheelchair by a childhood illness.

Sarah can not help herself, and her condition is certainly not her own fault. Should John help her?

Well, the question doesn't really take into account John's opinion. Let's say John likes Sarah a lot, and feels empathy for her condition. Nothing would stop him from giving Sarah whatever he wants to give her, and this would be a selfish act, as John would give as much to Sarah as it made him feel good to give her, up until it started to make his own life difficult.

But let's say John hates Sarah, and truly wouldn't mind if she died. Should John help her? Well, it's not really in his interest, is it? I mean, you could say that John's a jerk, but if John cared in any way about Sarah, it would be worth his while to help her out, to avoid the feeling of guilt that would accompany inaction.

The real question is whether it would be acceptable to force John to help Sarah. To that, I say absolutely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophiser,

I'd like to start by reminding you that the only proper purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. As such, the way that you outline the scheme you present, it is invalid from the start on those grounds alone.

Now.

In order to answer what you're asking, I'll have to divide it up into a series of questions.

"Would a private organization be able to profit from some sort of benefit/welfare system?"

The amount of economic benefit to return to an organization that gives out "free" gifts is a terribly non-profitable situation. If it really were possible that this could end up getting the gift-giver MORE money, then I encourage you to START such and organization and see how much profit you can make with this method. If you can't make any, (and I guarantee you won't!) then it is patently rediculous to suggest that our government should engage in this activity.

Even if you think that some small "return" on your investment could be realized, that "return" would have to compete with all other possible ways that you could have invested your money. In economics, it is vital to understand the concept of "opportunity cost." I would suggest Bastiat (bastiat.org) for a simple explanation, and Von Mises for an in-depth one.

The only way that an organization could profit from giving out money (with the intent that the recipient becomes productive) is if the money is given out, not as a gift, but as a LOAN. Organizations that give out loans, on the premise that the recipient will become productive, are called BANKS.

Thus, your question is invalid on that level. A more valid question would be "Can a bank profit by investing in Africa?"

First, I see that you seem to make an acknowledgement that no amount of money (gift or loan) will help out a nation or economy under totalitarian/autocratic/socialistic rule. This is a VERY important point, and I'd like to emphasize it again: NO amount of money will help a country if that country does not recognize and protect individual rights. The protection of individual rights is an absolute requirement for prosperity and any money thrown into a situation where rights are not respected will be wasted.

A rational banker will NEVER put his money into a country where any business investments of his could be siezed at any moment by statists. Since most of Africa is sadly in this state, a person would have to be CRAZY to throw their money at it.

So then, the question is again invalid. A more valid question would be, "Can an investor profit by funding the establishment of an individual-rights-respecting laissez-faire capitalist state and subsequently establishing their corporate functions in said country to exploit its resources?"

Like SoftwareNerd said, this is called COLONIZATION. There's one fairly major roadblock to it; let me explain:

History and society are driven by IDEAS and not economics (contrary to Marx...). If a population of murderous tribal savages suddenly has a capitalist government thrust upon them by a foreign power, there is a pretty good chance that they will continue to act like murderous tribal savages, and not the productive members of a free society. A major campaign to change their fundamental ideas... a campaign that would take perhaps GENERATIONS... would have to be undertaken. And it CAN'T be done with the mealy-mouthed half-socialist ideas espoused by any current political party.

Add to that the fact that the initial investment would have to be GIGANTIC and that it wouldn't pay off for decades (assuming they didn't simply choose to remain savages and throw car bombs at us), and you might start to see that it's not the best idea in the world.

The only possible way your goals could ever be accomplished is if a FULLY capitalist nation was doing the colonizing and it had a STRONG military that could guarantee the safety of the domestic corporations that were going to be established in the colony. Remember that ALL of the oil rigs in the middle east were built by WESTERN corporations and then SEIZED, ILLEGALLY by the arabs. (The government of Britain did nothing to resist this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the primary principle that needs to be kept in mind when considering "selfish welfare" is that to the extent that an individual is coerced, including being deprived of the values that he creates (his property), that individual is unable to produce new values, and thus to be a value to you. (Phew, that's a lot of "values".) A system whose result is to "punish the good for being good", i.e. by depriving them of their property, can never be beneficial to you, even if its aim is something that you see as a "good cause". If helping unfortunate individuals is a value to you, then by all means do so, but don't force others to ignore their own values in order to follow the dictates of your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophiser,

Your Viewing Profile provides no information about your level of study, understanding, and agreement with Objectivism, the philosophy which Ayn Rand created -- which is the philosophy that sets the context for ObjectivismOnline.net.

To provide context for this topic on welfare, would you please briefly describe your level of study, understanding, and agreement with Objectivism? If you disagree with Objectivism, then you have an excellent opportunity to debate any principle of Objectivism or application of a principle. That opportunity exists in the Debate Forum. There, you can debate with one person under very controlled conditions.

If you are honestly inquiring, rather than seeking a debate, then please describe your level of study, understanding, and agreement with Objectivism so that others in this topic know how best to respond.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...