Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it ever moral to go on welfare?

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

The argument "It is my money by right" is based on a false principle that "your money", i.e. the amount of money wrongly take from you by the government, is less than or equal to the amount of money forcibly taken back by you.

But the only context I meant my argument to apply to was one in which the amount taken back was less than or equal to the amount taken from you. If that's all you're saying then don't worry; I agree.

But, assuming that the amount you take back is less than or equal to what was taken from you, you do have a right to that money and it is not in the least bit required of you to have "no other options" in order to claim it, morally speaking. One's "need," or lack thereof, does not enter into it. The problem with Jennifer's argument is that she does take "need" (i.e. "no other options") as a justification/requirement. It is not, no matter how you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, if a thief steals your money (which you needed to buy food), buys food from it and gives it to you (which you then eat because you are so hungry), would you be wrong to demand that the thief is still made to pay back *your money* by justice?
I'd go further, and say that the thief should be arrested, hauled into court, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for years. But that is a separate question, quite distinct from the issue of whether "it's your money" is a valid argument to justify taking welfare. The conclusion could still be secure but for a different reason, or, to put it another way, the ends don't justify the means. Even if it is the case that it's proper to take welfare payments (in some circumstance -- I'm not even opening that can of worms right now), the validity of that conclusion does not establish "it's your money" as a fact.

But Inspector has clarified his intended context, that is, a recognition that there is a limit on the "it's your money" argument. That's where I wanted to go with that argument. I don't accept a strong "need-based" prerequisite. In fact, the root of the problem is the contradiction that I pointed in the direction of earlier.

The welfare state is fundamentally irrational -- it survives by perpetuating an irresolvable contradiction. That is why consistently applying reason to the situation is impossible. That doesn't tell you what you should do in a given situation, only that whatever you do will end up being to some extent self-destructive or unprincipled (which is a species of self-destructiveness). What I understand about welfare in the US is that it would be utterly immoral -- self-destructive -- to act in such a way that you would then qualify for welfare; but then, if you do stupidly self-destroy in some manner, I don't think you should say "Damn, that was stupid, now I must die".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The welfare state is fundamentally irrational -- it survives by perpetuating an irresolvable contradiction. That is why consistently applying reason to the situation is impossible.

I agree. At some point, you just don't know if it's your money or not. The welfare state takes from us in ways which are basically unaccountable. It makes a rational and complete resolution impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the act of accepting welfare isn't inherently moral or immoral, regardless of whether or not you have taken "more than your share" relative to the amount of taxes you've paid. Furthermore, the "(im)morality" of the welfare system itself is irrelevant to the question of whether or not to accept welfare, at least from the perspective of the recipient.

The only issue at stake here is the "WHY" with regards to accepting welfare. In other words, if you're on welfare in order to mooch, then the act is immoral. But if you're on welfare in order to get back on your feet (which incidentally is the way welfare is meant to be used in the first place), it is simply a logical matter of you acting on your rational self-interest, utilizing the available resources at your disposal, regardless of the end amount that you ended up receiving from the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the act of accepting welfare isn't inherently moral or immoral, regardless of whether or not you have taken "more than your share" relative to the amount of taxes you've paid. Furthermore, the "(im)morality" of the welfare system itself is irrelevant to the question of whether or not to accept welfare, at least from the perspective of the recipient.

The only issue at stake here is the "WHY" with regards to accepting welfare. In other words, if you're on welfare in order to mooch, then the act is immoral. But if you're on welfare in order to get back on your feet (which incidentally is the way welfare is meant to be used in the first place), it is simply a logical matter of you acting on your rational self-interest, utilizing the available resources at your disposal, regardless of the end amount that you ended up receiving from the system.

Yes I agree with the point about rational self-interest. Also I would like to go further and make mention of the morality of paying taxes to fund a welfare system. If I pay less taxes, it would appear, in a superficial sense, that I am servicing my own self interests more than I might if I were to pay more taxes.

However, if the consequence of my paying lower taxes is such that those people who might have recieved more welfare payments are now more socially unruly as a result, my life may well be affected. This can range form the trivial...As I go to the theatre to enjoy a new play, my experience is negatively impacted by having to clamber over the people living in carboard boxes on my way to the ticket offfice!

On a more serious note, the civil disturbances that become more likely in a society where the welfare system is less generous than might be otherwise means that I have to spend more money on personal security, my freedom to live, work and play wherever I want is limited to those areas that are not too poor etc.

I realize that the morality I am advancing is one of pragmatic rational self interest. But I believe that to be the best basis there is. Since it is rooted in the real and not in the ideal.

Edited by SteveCook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with the point about rational self-interest. Also I would like to go further and make mention of the morality of paying taxes to fund a welfare system. If I pay less taxes, it would appear, in a superficial sense, that I am servicing my own self interests more than I might if I were to pay more taxes.

However, if the consequence of my paying lower taxes is such that those people who might have recieved more welfare payments are now more socially unruly as a result, my life may well be affected. This can range form the trivial...As I go to the theatre to enjoy a new play, my experience is negatively impacted by having to clamber over the people living in carboard boxes on my way to the ticket offfice!

On a more serious note, the civil disturbances that become more likely in a society where the welfare system is less generous than might be otherwise means that I have to spend more money on personal security, my freedom to live, work and play wherever I want is limited to those areas that are not too poor etc.

I realize that the morality I am advancing is one of pragmatic rational self interest. But I believe that to be the best basis there is. Since it is rooted in the real and not in the ideal.

The opposite of what you say is true. The more money spent on welfare means the training of more unruly criminals and bad-behaving people. The fruits of welfare -- public housing, public schools and indolent days not working -- create rude and surly people at best, and heinous criminals at worst. Is it any wonder that crime rates shot up beginning the in the 1960s when welfare was radically expanded under Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon?

In contrast to welfare recipients, people who work to earn a living know the values of honesty, productiveness and civilized living. Can anyone doubt that people who work commit fewer crimes per capita than people who don't work?

To have safer and less mean streets, abolish welfare, all of it, completely and as quickly as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite of what you say is true. The more money spent on welfare means the training of more unruly criminals and bad-behaving people. The fruits of welfare -- public housing, public schools and indolent days not working -- create rude and surly people at best, and heinous criminals at worst. Is it any wonder that crime rates shot up beginning the in the 1960s when welfare was radically expanded under Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon?

In contrast to welfare recipients, people who work to earn a living know the values of honesty, productiveness and civilized living. Can anyone doubt that people who work commit fewer crimes per capita than people who don't work?

To have safer and less mean streets, abolish welfare, all of it, completely and as quickly as possible.

Perhaps you might like to provide an answer to the following question:

Why is it that in the scandinavian countries (Norway, Iceland etc.) where welfare provision, as viewed from your standpoint, is hideously high, do we find exceptionally low level of civil disturbance, crimes against the person, self harm and just about any other definable human deviance? I should add here that comprehensive welfare provision is not merely the provision of resources in order to allow a person not to have to work.

On the other hand, in countries that, relatively speaking, have much lower levels of welfare provision, all of the above deviances are much higher in their incidence. I am thinking particularly of the US and, to a lesser extent, the UK, as compared to the scandinavian countires mentioned above.

It seems to me there must be one of two explanations to the above question:

1) Countries such as the US have other cultural factors that lead them to have greater levels of deviance which is unaffected either way by welfare provision.

2) Welfare provision is positively related to lower deviance levels in society.

If you have other explanations, I am genuinely interested to hear them.

Edited by SteveCook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting question to examine in Scandinavia is whether welfare recipients commit more crimes than the general population there. I would hypothesize that residents of public housing, in particular, commit more crimes there than those who live in private homes. Such data would support your contention #1, that there are cultural factors other than welfare that explain differences in crime rates between Scandinavia and the U.K./U.S.

As for welfare in the U.S., what do the statistics say in regard to who commits more crimes? Do welfare recipients and residents of public housing, in particular, commit more crimes than those who do not receive welfare? Or, to put the question a different way, how safe do you feel when you walk through a block of public housing projects at night versus a block of condominiums? (I base my question on New York, in particular, although undoubtedly it is applicable in all regions of the country.)

In terms of behavior, walk into a welfare office. How polite and civilized do the recipients (and welfare workers) seem compared with the customers and employees you encounter at a supermarket or a bank?

For one more example, spend time in a variety of public schools, especially those in districts where a high proportion of residents live on welfare. Compare your experiences there with students and teachers at a variety of private schools. Of course, individual exceptions exist in both groups, but what are the norms?

As for myself, I have done all three of these things. My first-hand anecdotal evidence strongly supports the conclusion that welfare creates criminality and bad behavior.

Finally, consider what values a welfare recipient is likely to learn versus the values that a productive person will learn. The welfare recipient essentially learns that one gains by "scamming" the system. One scams to get food stamps, public housing, prescription drugs, free meals and clothing, etc. The productive person learns that to gain the values he wants, he has to work honestly and productively. Which person is more likely to be a criminal?

To me, the evidence is abundant that welfare creates more hoodlums and downright rude people per capita than non-welfare. That evidence is available in many locations and in many contexts.

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting question to examine in Scandinavia is whether welfare recipients commit more crimes than the general population there. I would hypothesize that residents of public housing, in particular, commit more crimes there than those who live in private homes.
I, contrarily, would hypothesize that that is the wrong relationship to be looking at. This is an inductive conclusion and not a deductive one, so I will admit up front that my person knowledge of crime statistics in Scandinavia suffers from a significant low-N problem. I believe that part of the problem would arise from uncertain interpretations of the concept "public housing" in Scandinavia.

The cause of the crime-rate in Scandinavia is well-known, and has not one thing to do with welfare, and everything to do with culture. The cause of the low crime rate is the deep acceptance of the notion of obligation to society and family, as the ethical primary (as codified, quasi-nonbindingly, in the Janteloven). This means that you are obligated to pay your taxes, obey the law and the rules -- quite mindlessley, IMO -- respect other people's rights, and help those in need. The welfare state then exploits this world-view, by making people accept that people have a right to live (not a right to be allowed to live, but a right to actually live) and that if that right is violated, you have the obligation to correct that injustice.

Anyhow, maybe Onar will offer his expert two kroner's worth, regarding the psycho-epistemology of Scandinavian society. My bottom line is that pointing to whatever about Scandinavia in terms of the merits of socialism is almost always, in my experience, scientifically clueless, unless it looks at the nature of the society. Copenhagen and especially Stockholm are proving my point, and I'm sorry for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a "low-N problem"?
When you draw an inductive inference about instances and causal principles, it matters, statistically speaking, how many examples you have. That's the "N". The underlying idea is that a relationship that is robustly established, i.e. attested in 95 out of 100 cases, is better than one attested in 2 out of 3 examples. To the best of my personal knowledge, there is no (real) crime in Scandinavia, apart from some art thieves. If I lived in Stockholm, I'd personally have different knowledge. What would be more relevant is that even getting past my experiential problems, the number of examples of criminal acts would be low enough (low N) that I would be skeptical about any statistical study of correlations between crime and housing factors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more money spent on welfare means the training of more unruly criminals and bad-behaving people. The fruits of welfare -- public housing, public schools and indolent days not working -- create rude and surly people at best, and heinous criminals at worst. Is it any wonder that crime rates shot up beginning the in the 1960s when welfare was radically expanded under Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon?

The relationship between welfare and crime isn't causal. To say that because people on welfare commit more crimes, therefore one must cause the other is a logical fallacy.

For instance, since people from lower economic standings are more welfare prone (obviously) and commit more crimes, I could just as easily conclude that money is the issue at stake here. In other words you would not solve the crime problem by eliminating welfare, although you could solve it by improving the quality of life for the poor.

That might be, by the way, why Scandinavian countries have lower crime rates when you compare them laterally against other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words you would not solve the crime problem by eliminating welfare, although you could solve it by improving the quality of life for the poor.

I am saying that eliminating welfare would improve the quality of the lives of both the poor and the non-poor, for the reasons I gave. If the poor are not on welfare, they work (assuming a sufficiently capitalist economic system, such that there is no excessive unemployment caused by government intervention in the economy). Those who work commit fewer crimes than those who don't work and are on welfare. Everyone benefits from the greater safety, wealth and lower crime rates of a society without welfare, i.e., a capitalist society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relationship between welfare and crime isn't causal. To say that because people on welfare commit more crimes, therefore one must cause the other is a logical fallacy.

Moebius, just an aside, if you use the "Reply button, the quote comes into the post with a reference arrow that allows the user to link directly back to the quote in question to see the context. I have a devil of a time figuring out who you were quoting.

This is not what GB said. He did not say that people on welfare commit more crimes (in ignorance of anything). He specifically hypothesized a mechanism for why this would be causally so. And qualified that it would be interesting to study such a mechanism.

An interesting question to examine in Scandinavia is whether welfare recipients commit more crimes than the general population there. I would hypothesize that residents of public housing, in particular, commit more crimes there than those who live in private homes. Such data would support your contention #1, that there are cultural factors other than welfare that explain differences in crime rates between Scandinavia and the U.K./U.S.

As for welfare in the U.S., what do the statistics say in regard to who commits more crimes? Do welfare recipients and residents of public housing, in particular, commit more crimes than those who do not receive welfare? Or, to put the question a different way, how safe do you feel when you walk through a block of public housing projects at night versus a block of condominiums? (I base my question on New York, in particular, although undoubtedly it is applicable in all regions of the country.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not what GB said. He did not say that people on welfare commit more crimes (in ignorance of anything). He specifically hypothesized a mechanism for why this would be causally so. And qualified that it would be interesting to study such a mechanism.

Yes, that is correct, although I am presuming the answer to the question. I am less interested in and knowledgeable of Scandinavia, but I know, through newspaper stories, anecdotes and personal experience that welfare recipients in the United States commit more crimes per capita than those who work. I tried to provide some anecdotal situations to think about that illustrate this point: e.g., walking through a public housing project, visiting public schools and welfare offices. One has either never been to a big city like New York or lacks a certain context to fail to appreciate what I think is an obvious point.

Of course, one can do the research and dig up the relevant statistics. If I am proven wrong, I will accept that. That would not change the immorality of welfare which involves theft of property and a violation of individual rights, but it would make the discussion quite interesting.

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is correct, although I am presuming the answer to the question. I am less interested in and knowledgeable of Scandinavia,

That's ok. Scandinavia has been discussed to death on this board. A quick search for "Sweden" will net anyone who is interested, numerous threads on the topic, such as this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ok. Scandinavia has been discussed to death on this board. A quick search for "Sweden" will net anyone who is interested, numerous threads on the topic, such as this one.

I glanced at a couple of those threads. It is interesting how so many Swedes want to come here, but I never hear about a reverse flow of people. I even have an acquaintance who is from Sweden, but lives here. He waxes poetic about the virtues of Sweden and its socialist model. Did I mention that he lives here? :thumbsup:

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am less interested in and knowledgeable of Scandinavia
And for the purposes of discussion the actual problems of socialism, Scandinavia is entirely irrelevant. The only reason why anybody with an interest in the practical consequences of socialism need to care at all is that it's a standard knee-jerk response from the commies to say "But look at Scandinavia". I'm coming to understand that pointing to the "success" of Scandinavian socialism is not just misguided, it's intellectual fraud.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cause of the crime-rate in Scandinavia is well-known, and has not one thing to do with welfare, and everything to do with culture.

For more proof of this, look at the non-Swedish population of Sweden that is on welfare, and ask what crimes they commit.

I'm coming to understand that pointing to the "success" of Scandinavian socialism is not just misguided, it's intellectual fraud.

Indeed, Sweden used to be less socialistic than their neighbors from the 1860's to the 1960's - a period in which their economy and standard of living became as good as it is. Since they switched to their socialist system in the 1960's, their economy and standard of living have been in decline. That "paradise" is mostly on paper and is quickly falling apart even there, what with the Moslem invasion and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Where are the pirates among you?!?! :pirate:

I'd say anything that helps speed up the destruction of the welfare state is generally good, such as draining it and making it economically unfeasable.

We're living in nations where 95%(figure of speech) of people think we should have some level of social services, and half the people want to open up their wallets further for you to take more money from them.

As long as you don't risk going to jail or being fined, and it doesn't infringe on your goals in life, take advantage of every stupid little program offered by the welfare state. Always vote against it and openly denounce it, but if it takes little effort, take it. At some point reality hits people that government is inefficient and at worst, demand stricter rules on the handing out of tax money.

I think it was Milton Friedman who said something about, we don't want government programs to be efficient and inexpensive, we want the opposite so people realize government shouldn't be doing these things.

Taking more out of the system than you put in is irrelevant since the system is immoral in the first place, and the majority of people want the system in place to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For this thread as a whole, I have little to offer except two points:

First, there already is an 'official' Objectivist position on the acceptance of welfare. Miss Rand addressed the issue directly in the article "The Question of Scholarships". It was first published in June 1966 in The Objectivist, and was reprinted in The Voice of Reason. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this article before. It also deals with related matters, such as acceptance of privately funded scholarships, government-funded research grants, and taking government jobs. For the present topic, some key quotes:

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified *only for so long as he regards it as restitution an opposes all forms of welfare statism*. Those who advocate public scholarships have no right to them, those who oppose them have.

...

Whenever the welfare state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.

...

It does not matter, in this context, whether a given individual has or has not paid an amount of taxes equal to the amount of the scholarship he accepts.

...

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance, or other payments of that kind.

I agree with its content, and would add this. You, as a tax-payer, presently have no ability to avoid paying taxes. In that context, who would you rather have the money go to: those who support continued draining of your funds without your permission, or those who would sustain themselves and continue to fight against the damnable system? As a taxpayer I say to all you Objectivist readers who are on welfare of some kind and don't want to know that so long as I have no choice but to pay you may consider yourselves entirely entitled to get what you can. I consider as irrational another taxpayer who would not similarly recognise such an entitlement.

Second, one is morally obliged to work within the law, in the spirit of accepting the principle of the rule of law. Generally, it is moral to break law only as part of a wider campaign of civil disobedience actively aimed at bringing a bad government or political system down by force, and we are absolutely nowhere near that stage. One should not break even immoral law just to pursue business as usual when it is possible to live and even be successful without doing so and there are still in place key freedoms such as free speech and representative government. Whatever you can legally get, get, down to the last cent - but stay legal.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of wonder if people on an Objectivist forum, people who support political Capitalism, or even people who just hate the welfare system, could possibly ever fall victim to it, as was sort of mentioned in some posts... that welfare will corrupt you. I doubt most people on this forum would fall victim to it, or even be on it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking more out of the system than you put in is irrelevant since the system is immoral in the first place, and the majority of people want the system in place to some extent.

that doesn't quite sound right...

the system is immoral , therefore, generally, anything you do to help destroy it is fine, especially considering such a large percentage of our populations support it, in my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this article before.
Like here, here, here, here, here, here and other places. I suppose it's because it's repetitive to have to make that argument every couple of months when yet another person faces this puzzle and hasn't read much of Rand's nonfiction. There ought to be an Objectivist FAQ, though I've got stuff to do this week.
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...