Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it ever moral to go on welfare?

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

Granted, I am opposed to the existence of income taxes and the welfare program. But, given that it already exists, I'd like to propose the following scenario by which it would not be immoral to go on welfare:

A man graduates college and gets a respectable job which allows him to live in relative comfort. Then, he undergoes a personal tragedy or just makes a series of bad decisions. Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that he paid $1000 in income taxes, before this tragedy/bad decision. He decides to go on welfare, just long enough to get back on his feet, and he promises himself that the total amount of his welfare checks will not exceed $1000, the amount he has paid in taxes. Is this immoral?

My answer is no. He has only taken back part of what was rightfully his in the first place, and it is likely that the confiscatory tax system in this country greatly contributed to his current predicament. The fact that he actually paid this money into the system in the first place is why I included "bad decision" as a suitable reason for him to go on welfare. We all make bad decisions from time to time, and we are free to use our economic resources to correct them. In his case, that $1000 is rightfully his, and I think that he has the moral right to use it to learn from his mistakes and ensure that they don't happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would go further, and say it is moral to take more than $1,000 in welfare benefits in this situation. It is nearly certain that over the course of his life this man will pay far more in taxes to the welfare state than he will receive in return.

My only piece of advice to this man is that welfare is very dangerous psychologically. He must endeavor to get off it and back on his feet as quickly as possible so that he does not develop the psychology of a moocher. I am not saying he is one; he is not one in the situation as described. However, he will be surrounded by moochers to the extent he involves himself with the system. That is spiritually degrading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would go further, and say it is moral to take more than $1,000 in welfare benefits in this situation. It is nearly certain that over the course of his life this man will pay far more in taxes to the welfare state than he will receive in return.

Agreed; in fact if you count all of the innovation and economic activity that the welfare state has stifled, the number is considerably higher than even that.

Also agreed on the caveat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's not enough context in this hypothetical . . . but then again, there rarely is. I personally would not go on welfare, but that's a matter of pride and stubbornness combined with the fact that I haven't really needed to . . . welfare is for people that don't work. Anyone can declare bankruptcy and stay at the YMCA or the Salvation Army shelter (or with family or a buddy) while they work double shifts at Kroger or the steel mill or whatever. It might take you a lot of pick-and-shovel work to get yourself out of the hole you're in, but your own stupid decisions likely put you there in the first place.

Now, if you have truly wound up in a position where there IS no YMCA or Salvation Army or family or buddy and no crap jobs, THEN you have a problem: see Cinderella Man or The Grapes of Wrath. Then you may just have to swallow the humiliations as best you can and let them turn to acid in your stomach.

If you're going to ask me if it's legitimate to take money that was looted off other people (many of whom are also just getting by) so you don't have to sell your car or vacate your nice apartment, then I hope you choke on it. This is what you call self-respect? You might as well knock over a 7-eleven while you're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In answer to this very question at a lecture I attended of Ayn Rand's sometime in the late '60s, someone from the audience asked this question, in general terms. Her very general answer was this: "The system is already there. Use it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to ask me if it's legitimate to take money that was looted off other people (many of whom are also just getting by) so you don't have to sell your car or vacate your nice apartment, then I hope you choke on it.

First, I don't think you can even get welfare if you have nice things. The people who have nice things on welfare are renting them so that they can claim no property for the system.

Second, it was also looted off of you, so you have every right to it. Saying you hope that someone chokes on the money they took back from the looters doesn't make much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed; in fact if you count all of the innovation and economic activity that the welfare state has stifled, the number is considerably higher than even that.

While true, welfare cannot replace the values that the state has destroyed - it takes them from other people, so that particular measurement is not valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it ever moral to go on welfare?

I can't see how this question is different (essentially) from: is it ever moral to go to (or take your child to) a public school or state-owned university or hospital, etc? (or to watch state-owned TV).

It is necessary to distinguish between the morality of ever talking government-provided benefits versus the psychological risks of doing so. I think it is moral to accept welfare, for the reason cited in this post and the fact that your earnings are looted by the welfare state. It is a form of repayment of those earnings. Of course, those earnings are stolen not just from you, but from everyone, but that fact does not mean that you are immoral for reclaiming some of those funds.

The main issue that distinguishes receiving welfare from taking advantage of things such as public television or public schools is that the latter are goods, whereas the former is a form of state-financed "charity" (it really isn't a charity, because charity implies voluntary giving). Because welfare essentially involves living or mooching off someone else's expense (and yours, to the extent you have or will have paid taxes), it can be very psychologically damaging.

One should try as hard as one can to live productively and avoid ever having to even consider accepting welfare but, if through misfortune, you end up doing it, I do not think it is immoral. However, try this. Go to a neighborhood where many people live off welfare and see how they live. It should make you think twice about accepting it and, if you have accepted it, to resolve to get off it as fast as humanly possible.

Lastly, one should never equate accepting any government-financed benefit, whether welfare or public schools or scholarships or whatever, with advocating such things. It is in one's self-interest that all of these things be abolished so that you can benefit from laissez-faire capitalism. The self-interest to you of freedom outweighs any temporary benefit you may receive from a government freebie. Moreover, if you actively try to "grab" as much government booty as you can get your hands on, you may find yourself beginning to justify and rationalize these programs.

Accepting government booty is a very slippery slope, indeed. It need not be immoral, but it can be risky to one's well-being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase?

Although the state destroys wealth both by outright confiscation and by preventing economic activity, that does not give us a claim on the values that you were not able to create, because those values can only come at the expense of other producers. So environmental regulation which prevent you from growing crops on your fields don't make it acceptable to accept farm subsidies, since those subsidies can only come at the expense of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I don't think you can even get welfare if you have nice things. The people who have nice things on welfare are renting them so that they can claim no property for the system.

You mean, you think you're not supposed to be able to get welfare if you have nice things. I haven't looked into it so I can't argue in general terms, but I know a LOT of people game food stamps, at least . . . because those are mainly based on how many kids you have.

Like I said, these are my personal feelings on the subject, not my argument about the morality/immorality of welfare . . . if you're really in a bind you might as well go for it. I don't worry too much about what people do to get by in a screwed up system when their back is up against the wall, and I tend to generously assume that they really had no other options. However, in my actual experience there has to be something going on like the Great Depression to put you in that situation. Maybe what you REALLY need to do is to stop supporting that drug-addled boyfriend of yours, move into a smaller apartment, put your kids with their grandmother and work two jobs.

As far as getting your money back from the government goes, I don't mind if people get scholarships and grants and so forth: the government has made it nearly impossible to go to college or fund research on your own. It has NOT made it nearly impossible to get by on your own. Harder? More work than it theoretically ought to be? Sure. But not even close to nearly impossible. Heck, I'm doing it and I'm the laziest person I know. That's the moral difference right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the state destroys wealth both by outright confiscation and by preventing economic activity, that does not give us a claim on the values that you were not able to create, because those values can only come at the expense of other producers. So environmental regulation which prevent you from growing crops on your fields don't make it acceptable to accept farm subsidies, since those subsidies can only come at the expense of others.

This brings up the larger issue of whether and if so on what terms, it is acceptable to accept government-financed benefits. Such a topic may warrant its own thread. I use the term "benefits" in the broadest possible sense to encompass not just welfare, but "corporate welfare" such as the farm subsidies referenced above, cash grants for sundry purposes, loans, loan guarantees, housing, education, etc. It encompasses all forms of wealth that are granted to some individuals after having been stolen from taxpayers.

As a general principle, I think it is moral to accept such benefits from the government. I do not think it is acceptable to take it in all circumstances, but it is acceptable in many circumstances. The government largesse is money that has been stolen from everyone, including yourself. It is entirely moral to reclaim some of that property. You are not stealing it; you are reclaiming what has been stolen from you. The fact that you cannot specifically identify which portion was stolen from you or whether at this instant in your life, you are a net "involuntary contributor" or net recipient of government booty, is not particularly relevant. Over the course of your life, if you are reasonably productive, it is highly likely that far more will be taken from you by the government than you are getting back from it.

It is moral to accept government benefits if it would be self-sacrificial not to. Using the example of farm subsidies, if it is extremely difficult to succeed at farming because farm subsidies are widespread, it would be self-sacrificial not to accept them. If all your competitors, neighbors and friends have their hand deep in the public trough, could you even succeed if you don't reach your hand in as well?

Another example is subsidized housing in New York City. NYC has the most highly distorted housing market in the country. It has had some form of rent control since World War II. Under that system, renters are tenants-for-life, and they can pass down their apartments in perpetuity to their heirs. Large, decrepit buildings cannot be torn down if there is a single regulated tenant in there who does not want to move out.

The result of rent control is that not enough new rental housing gets built in the city. So, rents and housing prices generally, because of the artificial scarcity of housing caused by rent control, soar into the stratosphere. Since it is nearly impossible to "score" a decent rent-regulated apartment in the city (turnover is extremely low in these apartments), you must pay ridiculously high prices in rent for one of the permitted "market" rent apartments, or you must pay a humongous price to buy a condo. Or, you simply don't live in New York and move to Chicago or another city without rent regulation.

Given this type of environment where the government has made it very difficult to purchase housing, is it immoral to accept a subsidized apartment from the city? More of these subsidized apartments are being built these days. Today (until they eventually become decrepit), some are rather nice. All of them are much cheaper than market alternatives.

I do not think it is immoral to accept subsidized housing in the situation I describe, nor is it immoral for a farmer to accept crop subsidies. In both instances, government intervention has made it very difficult to prosper without the subsidy, and the subsidies represent money that is theirs, as well as belonging to the rest of us.

Analogous arguments can be made why it is moral to attend public school, etc.

If it is moral to accept government benefits in some instances, this leads to three related topics:

When is it immoral to accept government benefits?

What are the risks to one's well-being of accepting government benefits? I elaborated on that in my post on welfare above. Accepting government benefits runs you the risk of becoming psychologically dependent and less self-reliant. That is why, this leads to my final point:

If you can, try to avoid accepting government hand-outs to the degree you are able. You will be better off for it. You will be more self-reliant, more productive, etc.

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can, try to avoid accepting government hand-outs to the degree you are able. You will be better off for it. You will be more self-reliant, more productive, etc.

On this last point, any long-time resident of New York can spot what I call the "rent control mentality." People who have lived in decrepit rent-controlled buildings for long periods of time have it. Their biggest quality is fear. Because their rents are so much lower than market rents, they know that if anything happened to the rent control law or the rent controlled status of their apartment, or if for some reason their building became uninhabitable due to fire or the landlord simply walking away from it (there are acres and acres of buildings in New York that have been abandoned by landlords whose rental property became worthless because of rent control), they are sh_ _-out-of-luck. Furthermore, because they never bought an apartment, they have accumulated no equity in real estate which they could sell to enable them to buy a new apartment somewhere else.

No, the rent controlled tenant is really the one who is controlled. He is trapped in his apartment, and as the years go by he finds himself more trapped. Meanwhile, his apartment gradually decays around him. He may have insufficient electric service, so he cannot buy that flat-screen TV. His heat goes out inexplicably in the winter. Loud neighbors move in next door to him. The super is surly and he has a landlord who would give his left arm to kick him out of the building.

As his friends and classmates, those who weren't "lucky" enough to score a rent-controlled apartment, buy condos or move to fabulous apartments in other cities, he is left behind in his lonely little rat-hole.

In case you think I am exaggerating, spend some time in New York. The rent control mentality is everywhere. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers live in just the type of fear I describe.

Relating this back to our topic... Yes, it is moral to accept government benefits, subsidies, etc., but beware the cost. It may not always be apparent at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised with how many people have posted in here. I'm also surprised by the fact that no one seems to say that it is always immoral to go on welfare. I expected some people to agree with me, but not all.

As to the psychological damage, I largely agree with what has been said. I would personally not go on welfare unless there was truly no other choice. I would live with my parents, or even my in-laws if I had to, before I would go on welfare. But if all viable relatives were dead or not on speaking terms with me, and I was in a situation where I was literally on the street with no money, I don't see what other choice I'd have. Assume, for this sake, that there is no private charity nearby...a rare circumstance, to be sure, but I don't doubt that it exists.

I agree that situations such as this are rare, I'm sure that it does happen from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anyone say that it would be immoral to go on welfare in such a situation. Megan was talking about her personal preferences and David was talking about wealth that had never been created, rather than wealth that you created that was then seized from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In answer to this very question at a lecture I attended of Ayn Rand's sometime in the late '60s, someone from the audience asked this question, in general terms. Her very general answer was this: "The system is already there. Use it."

Indeed. Add to the funds confiscated outright in payroll deductions, property taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, income taxes and government fees, the price of almost everything we buy is inflated by taxes and regulation, and our incomes are reduced by both.

Whether one goes on welfare is immoral depends on one's reasons. If it's to avoid working - bad. If it's as a Band Aid, OK. Not mentioned here is that typically folks who lose jobs get unemployment or disability - both of which are funded with a direct tax withheld from paychecks that most people never, ever collect from.

We receive a number of benefits (small as they are) because my daughter uses a wheelchair. In every case I've never sought it out (they practically throw it at us) and I have no problem with it because I'd gladly give it all up if I didn't have to pay the kinds of taxes that I and my family have paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the state...

Galileo beat me to it. "What he said." Including the part about beware, especially since the terms of receiving government aid usually require you to not engage in productive activity. If this was an old-timey map, that would be the part marked "here there be dragons."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To change the question slightly...Does everyone that thinks accepting welfare is moral believe that it is moral only when the need is legitimate, or would scamming the system also be moral if you could pull it off? So, say, collect food stamps and get free housing but work under the table for cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean, you think you're not supposed to be able to get welfare if you have nice things. I haven't looked into it so I can't argue in general terms, but I know a LOT of people game food stamps, at least . . . because those are mainly based on how many kids you have.

Yes, with the added note that the things you have to do to "game" the system are usually very onerous to people who are averse to a ghetto lifestyle. Like having a bunch of kids, renting all of your property, living in a housing project, etc.

As far as getting your money back from the government goes, I don't mind if people get scholarships and grants and so forth: the government has made it nearly impossible to go to college or fund research on your own. It has NOT made it nearly impossible to get by on your own.

I don't give a flying damn about whether you "need" it or not; about whether it is possible to "get by" without it. The money is yours. They took it from you and it is moral to take it back. Mostly, it is as I said: too onerous for a rational person to abide by the "lifestyle" that the government requires of you. But if it wouldn't compromise your productive efforts to use these programs to recover some of the wealth that was stolen from you, then it is moral and good to do so. There is no justification for a negative opinion, personal or otherwise, for someone who does so, without knowing more about their motivation and what else they do with their life.

You can have suspicions, you can raise an eyebrow, but I think that it is unjustified to blanket-condemn in the way you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can i introduce a different angle to this?

What if someone goes on welfare so that she could concentrate on writing her book (maybe an Atlas Shrugged) without having to worry about food, etc as she types away? i don't see how this would be psychologically damaging - even without the whole hard luck story to necessarily precede such a decision.

(By the way, i hear the author of Harry Potter wrote her billion-dollar book while on welfare, or am i mistaken?)

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can i introduce a different angle to this?

What if someone goes on welfare so that she could concentrate on writing her book (maybe an Atlas Shrugged) without having to worry about food, etc as she types away? i don't see how this would be psychologically damaging - even without the whole hard luck story to necessarily precede such a decision.

(By the way, i hear the author of Harry Porter wrote her billion-dollar book while on welfare, or am i mistaken?)

Blackdiamond,

Walk into a welfare office. Observe the type of people who go there and work there. Imagine joining them as a supplicant, kow-towing to the welfare bureaucrats and answering intrusive questions about your personal life, all the while working hard to show to them that you are so poor you need welfare. If you think you can still write that great novel under those conditions, I admire your ability to keep focused!

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...