Uh Oh ... Boring 10

 

My answer to this question is that the design is not inherently flawed. If I thought it were, then I would not advocate a Welfare State. Of course, conservatives believe the design of any Welfare or Socialist State is flawed beyond any possible repair. In between, there are many shades of opinion.

To assume that the Welfare State (democratic socialism) is a feasible form of government is not thereby to assume a particular form of it, or to subscribe to some universal list of programs or benefits which must be included. Subscription to the notion of a Welfare State does require one believe the government has a duty to arrange things for the benefit of all its citizens equally, so far as that is possible. That is not a Utilitarian belief, as there is no calculation of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' to determine what is the government's duty. Nonetheless, there could be times and places in which the Utilitarian standard would be the appropriate measure. This flexibility - or lack of an ironclad standard - should be taken to indicate that it is a "matter of judgement" as to what is possible and feasible in the given circumstances. In the first instance, the good of the Welfare State is tested by its intentions, by what it proposes to accomplish in general, and not by a specific laundry list of benefits and costs. The second measure is what is actually accomplished of what was intended.

Clearly, if we take the benefits to be provided as flexible, according to what society can offer from time to time, the claim of design flaw is obviated - unless you believe that society should never provide a benefit to anyone. But, in that case, you are probably an Anarchist or extreme Libertarian because a society that provides no benefits is not a society at all (excepting a society of masochists). At least for my purpose, the question is what or how many benefits should be provided, not whether they should be provided. Even most conservatives agree that society should provide some benefits, so the real argument for most people is about how much and what kind. Secondary to that judgement is the question who will receive the benefits and who will pay the costs.

It makes a difference whether one starts from conservative or liberal assumptions about society, because those political philosophies propose very different views of "human nature." In Hobbes' theory, Leviathan is merely the result of an urgent human need for self-defense. The basic conservative line, even today, is that the State's primary raison d'etre is police and defense. Put another way, the State exists to tax its citizens so as to recruit and pay for its warriors, who become the rulers that tax the citizens. Hobbes justifies the military aristocracy, and monarchy or autocracy generally, on a view of people that disregards their need and desire for food, clothing medical care, education and all the other things we expect in our society. There is no Welfare State in the Hobbesian universe, just armies of ant-humans with a desperate desire for a secure order.

The traditional starting point for modern liberal societies is John Locke s Social Contract. The United States government is profoundly based on Locke s ideas, even if American conservatives think it is only about cops and soldiers. The social contract puts agreement between people at the root of government, for whatever purposes they may have. In Locke s world, people are not coming together merely to defend themselves against the outside world. They have not formed a society as a result of military conquest. Instead, the idea is that the agreement among people which institutes government can be for any purpose. This latter generality is clearly what the American Founding Fathers had in mind as early as the Declaration of Independence, not just a compact for defense. (Those wanting nothing more than security could be satisfied with colonial government. The War of Independence had much larger goals, particularly self-governance.)

So, again, the question is not whether the United States is a Hobbesian State, but to what extent we will serve ourselves our wont. In general, what benefits should the Welfare State provide? And, what are its limits? Clearly, the answers cannot be providing everything without limit, because every State has limits on what it can do, because people - biological beings - are limited individually and collectively. It is senseless to argue that States provide medical benefits, if in the first instance they are unable to provide enough food, clothing and shelter. The question of what should be provided depends on the economy, and then upon the particular social relations the people have set up for themselves. It should not depend on social relations that are enforced upon the people without their agreement, as in the various forms of tyranny. The presumption of the Welfare State I am discussing is democracy, not paternalism or authoritarian benevolence. So, the question becomes, what does it make sense for (free) people to agree on, assuming they can afford it? This phrasing allows, as I see it, a very wide range of choices, from a minimal Welfare State to an extensive one, so it does force or preclude any particular solution.

Property

At the bottom of these questions is a controversy resolved in Europe, but not in America: what is the place and value of property? The role of property centrally defines just how much of a Welfare State there can be, because it delimits the relationship between the individual and the State. It also delineates a difference between two different sorts of lifestyles: one that places importance on things and another that places importance on personal well-being. There are, of course, many other possible lifestyles (philosophical choices about how to live), but these two are the main antagonists in the social and political plays of our times. Typically, those who value things highly are conservatives who want their property rights preserved. Those who want their lives to be fulfilling, regardless of property ownership, generally are liberals. This is not an exclusive division, as usually those who value property also want fulfillment, and those who value fulfillment also want property. Thus, in practice, it boils down to how much of one, and how much of the other. Nonetheless, the issue remains which is primordial: property or well being. I choose the latter.

Those who prefer property to well-being are usually worried about things like defense. They are usually conservative because they have a stake in the status quo; they feel strongly they have something to lose. For them, as actual, perceived or would-be winners in the existing order of things, more welfare means less for themselves, so welfare is threatening. Most often, it is males who take this view, possibly because genetic "maleness" causes a desire to fight and possess something. Females are generally more interested in security than possession. So it may be the sexual dimorphism of homo sapiens makes property an issue. To the extent that property is sex-associated, it may be the result of male insecurity about progeny. Until recently, human males could not be 100% certain their genes were advanced in mating, except by effective capture and imprisonment of females. But, even with the certitude of DNA analysis, it is still not clear whether one's progeny will survive and dominate without property. So, ownership remains a crucial issue even when sexual insecurity is removed. I note, however, a naturally communal species might never have bothered itself with the issue, or even have thought of it.

I do not doubt that homo sapiens, at every age, requires some form of property; i.e., ownership. Children argue over who owns the desirable toys. By the time humans are teenagers, each person is assumed to have a personal set of clothes, some rights of privacy and a room or sleeping place. Adults feel a need to have their own homes, in which they may securely raise their offspring. Even nomads have their own tents, and claim territories for their wanderings. Humans do share things, space and time, but only after assuring themselves some personal wealth and security. These practices are obviously of ancient origin, and won't disappear in a generation or two. For that reason, beliefs such as the Soviet or Nazi "New Man" - a form of Lamarckism - are probably wrong in fact and principle. If people require ownership of personal necessities - if they are not completely interchangeable clones - then there are definite limits as to how much communism or socialism people will accept. This situation seems to me a natural fact, implying that successful socialist (welfare) States will exercise restraint in their redistribution policies. (The object is to improve people's lives, not just level them.)

If ownership - property - are fundamental concepts and practices in human societies, are not conservatives correct in their views? My answer is plainly NO! Conservative concepts of ownership are class-oriented, and do not protect the property rights of the lower classes, particularly the poor. Conservatives narrowly define property, but ownership extends beyond houses, savings accounts and similar forms of wealth. Ownership includes clothes and appearance, for example, which are part of the regalia making up 'the person.' Ownership includes one s concept of self, which we have recently discovered as a result of the latest criminal invention: identity theft.

A larger notion of ownership is possible in the Welfare State. When we speak of  entitlement,  we are imputing ownership to those eligible for a benefit. Being entitled to Social Security invokes essentially the same principle as being entitled to live in (own) one s house. The two things involve the same concept of ownership, implying socially sanctioned and recognized possession and control. To say that something is mine is to assert not only my physical possession of it, but my symbolic possession of it as well. While possession in primitive societies is  9 points of the law,  beyond a certain point of development ownership per force is cumbersome and counter-productive. All modern societies rely on systems of licensing - usually pieces of paper - that grant ownership of the thing described in writing to the owner of the paper. (Notice that possession of the paper is not necessarily required, as when we officially record things at the County Clerk s office.) Because possession is generalized to written statements, which are cited as proof of ownership, it becomes possible to own things one could never physically possess, such as intellectual property.

Because of the generality of this modern notion of ownership, property and ownership are not limitations on the Welfare State. That is simply the consequence of the idea that people can be  entitled  to benefits; i.e., they own them. The Welfare State extends traditional forms of property (land, buildings and manufacturing processes) to new kinds of property including old age and disability benefits. Thus, property rights cannot be an objection to the Welfare State. At worst, there is only a conflict between different property rights, not a denial of entitlement.

While, in Europe, property is not seen as fundamental to liberty and human rights, in America that connection is generally held as true. But, it does not matter which is more fundamental, property or human rights, because in either case the real issue for the Welfare State is the balance between conflicting rights, not the rights themselves. From this point of view, most conservative arguments against the Welfare State are irrelevant, once it is granted that people are entitled to (can own) benefits. What is not irrelevant is how much and at what cost. That is the political question of the day, almost every day.

It is of passing interest that the Bandit advertises his proposals on Social Security under the banner  ownership society.  While he believes his is an original proposal, in reality we already have an ownership society. People already own the benefits the Bandit seeks to reduce or eliminate, making his advertising ironic indeed.

Class Warfare

Most political thinkers do not deny people are entitled to at least some benefits, unless they are anarchists. Here, I won t argue with the anarchists, as theirs is a thorough-going, logically consistent position in this matter. If you deny social organization and government, then there can t be any social or political benefits. In a jungle of individuals, whatever you are able to get is the most you will get. All that I or anyone can say to anarchists is,  well, that s your opinion, but I strongly disagree.  In a friendly mood, we might add,  and Good Luck.

Nonetheless, some conservatives deny that people are entitled to certain benefits allegedly because it involves a deprivation of their property. These conservatives with whom I quarrel are not anarchists; rather, they prefer to structure society with only a certain range of benefits, and not others. This denial of benefits, of ownership of  a piece of the action,  has several motivations, none of which have anything to do with the economic ability of society to provide the benefits. I consider several of those motives in denying benefits illegitimate. All of these come under the heading  class warfare,  the friction or actual violence between the social and economic classes. (Note: Despite conservative sociologists  denial that there is such a thing as class, probably because they do not like Marxist ideas, I think it obvious and easily observable that caste and class exist in America.)

One such motive is the sense of exclusiveness some people need. Some individuals need to be treated as exceptional, as heroes. They have feelings of superiority over others which must be externally proven in several ways. Society must demonstrate its recognition of such people by granting them special places to live, special services and power over others. In other words, these people need to live in  exclusive  neighborhoods, have servants and always be the boss. They feel entitled to get whatever they want. When deprived of those recognitions, this sort of person is miserable and depressed. Some even commit suicide. Most of them contribute little to society unless they are put in the positions they seek. When they hold such positions, they  lord it over  others, to prove the exalted state of their being. I think people who deny benefits to others for these sorts of reasons, as well as personal aggrandizement or messiah complex, have psychological problems. They need medical attention, not more money or power. I don t think these sorts of feelings justify discrimination because they are personal feelings, not reasons.

Another reason given for denying benefits to some and granting them to others is ultimately Platonic, but has many modern forms. The bottom layer of such reasons is always the Platonic construction: some people have iron or bronze souls, while others have the quality of silver or gold. (It is interesting that, 2500 years ago, the aristocrat Plato analogizes a person s quality to the relative economic values of those commodity metals.) The modern version of Plato s analogy arises over and over. It was at the heart of Italian Fascism represented by Il Duce, and the Nazi assertion of Aryan superiority. The same sort of claim is used to justify Heroic CEOs, and the fantastic panoply of things CEOs get just for showing up. The crux of the Platonic argument is that some people are  made for  leadership, whereas others are not. In modern terms, leaders have the nearly unique combination of genes and education required to fulfill their positions. If true, I would take this as an argument against some people holding certain jobs, but what does that have to do with benefits paid? Nothing in the assertion that someone has a gold or silver soul implies that person should receive any greater benefits than anyone else. I fail to see any necessary connection between benefits and position.

Capitalists argue, on the contrary, that the reason for high CEO (and other managerial) pay is the rarity of skills those people have. CEOs are not only a rare breed, but special because they represent the entire company. CEOs must have the ability to get a multitude to work together, as well as see how they might work together in different settings. The rationale for CEO pay is what the market will offer for the required skills, not whether CEOs have gold souls.

This last argument, if true, might justify high pay, but doesn t connect to the quality of one s soul in any direct manner. Of course, it might be said that arriving in a leadership position proves the quality of soul (turning Plato on his head), but that is just an empirical relationship. It remains to be shown that assuming leadership only occurs when one has the requisite quality. So, it seems to me that being a leader and being paid well are two different things, which happen to converge in some modern corporations. There being no necessary connection, the argument that quality of soul deserves higher recompense falls apart.

Even the capitalist argument about scarcity of resources may be false. CEOs are typically not recruited from among the working or middle classes. One of the unfortunate facts about American society is how some sectors of the economy are becoming guilds. More and more Hollywood actors are sons and daughters of Hollywood actors. About 2/3 of all doctors are doctor s children. Social mobility is declining, according to number of measures. So, we don t know whether CEOs could be recruited from large segments of the population. In fact, they are almost exclusively recruited from rather narrow, upper middle and upper class groups. The  top  (socially, politically and economically elite) 1000 families in the United States control most of the country s natural and man-made resources, either as managers or owners. So, we could look upon CEO recruitment as one aspect of that group s attempts at self-preservation. There is no test of the  scarcity of human resources  theory in the United States. It is far more likely that certain managers and key leaders are well paid because of their class origin than their rare skills.

I believe it is also true that the upper classes are jealous of their position. There has always been a prejudice against  the nouveau,  seen as a parvenue. That may be a factor in the extreme hatred conservatives have for fmr. Pres Bill Clinton. Being clubbed is an upper class desideratum.

Robbery

Apart from personal and social prejudice, there is a rock-bottom economic argument against the Welfare State: it robs Peter to pay Paul. Since it is the rich and wealthy, the haves, who will be taxed to provide benefits for the have-nots, they are resentful. Their claim is that the State does not have the right to collect the taxes, or redistribute income and wealth, because what is theirs is theirs. This claim involves a denial of responsibility for others. Behind the Bandit s  Ownership Society,  for example, is a simple idea:  every man for himself.

It should be made clear that this claim is not an assertion of poverty, that we cannot afford the promised benefits (but, see below). Rather, it is a claim of dis-entitlement, that people have no right to any benefit they did not "earn". This immediately brings up the issue of what is earned, and how income is distributed in our society. That is, there are two sides to the issue, not just one: is it fair to tax the rich, and is it fair to let the poor starve?

I immediately pose the question that way, because those who claim robbery would like the matter to be seen as absolute: that they have an absolute right to keep their income and wealth. The usual idea is that each person has a right to treat and dispose of his property as he sees fit. This is the extreme, absolute ownership view of property. On that view, taxes are a voluntary concession to the State, not an obligation imposed by law. If someone believes in absolute possession, then it is easy to understand the resulting rage when the government intrudes. In my travels, especially in the rural West, I have come across these attitudes on many occasions, perhaps because many people who want to be entirely self-sufficient and separated from the rest of American society ( survivalists ) move to such regions.

But, such a view of property is absurd. If one's property rights are final and inviolable, then society is extremely limited. It is true in my experience that the two things go together: those who have hard line views about property are often extremely anti-social. The limitations on society are a direct result of the lack of offering by hermetic property owners. Social relationships in any form - personal, sexual, economic, political - require interaction of the parties; they necessarily involve give and take. The backwoods survivalist is not interested in any of that. Many of those folks are unable to deal with family or close relatives except in the most structured, authoritarian manner, and some of them live completely alone. If, in practice, social isolation is correlated with absolutist views of property ownership, this is also the case in theory. Social institutions require the participation and efforts of their members. Whether it is the local bar, club, school, church, business or government, participants have to provide money or services to keep the doors open. Even religious organizations learned that long ago, when they used the State to impose various taxes on the people on behalf of the church. Every business requires intense social contact among its employees and customers in order to make money and survive. Government is no different.

To hold that property is inviolable is simply to retreat into an extreme Libertarian or Anarchist position. People who have that view must concede that government (and society generally) owe them nothing, since they give nothing. For many survivalists, that position suits them well; they just want to be left out of whatever is going on in the larger world. There is still hypocrisy in their lives, however, since most of them have plenty of money and the other things of modern society. To be consistent, I would expect them to give up all of that.

The idea I insist upon is this: property itself is a thing defined and given by society, not something that exists 'in the state of nature.' A man in the jungle controls some territory around him as long as he is able, but nature does not recognize what is controlled as his right. Lions, tigers and viruses do not stop at the invisible line demarcating 'my territory.' Property only exists as a concept in the minds of men. When a loner insists upon the inviolability of his property, that is something in his mind. Society does not thereby automatically "know" what the owner considers his. So, it should be certain that a man's property only became "his" in the first place as a result of social recognition; i.e. "property" is a concept belonging to the classes of concepts included in "society."

Thus, if it is true that property is social derived, it makes no sense to claim it cannot be modified by society. I must take it that people who insist on their absolute property rights are just telling me to go away and leave them alone. Or, they are saying they refuse to co-operate with the demands society imposes on them in consequence of the benefits society grants them. What society does about this varies, but it is clear that society does not have to accept the answer. That's because the true grant of ownership is social in nature in the beginning, so society has the right to modify and dispose of it. American and almost all other societies have laws governing "eminent domain," which deal with recalcitrant property owners. Refusal to co-operate does not abridge social obligation (as seen by society).

On the foregoing view of the matter, my view, those opposing entitlements can claim that robbery and all sorts of other crimes are being performed upon them, but those are just noisy claims. The legal basis of State claims is sound, because the concept of ownership rests in society, not the individual. The claims the State has on individuals include all forms of property, real and personal.

Further, the State has claims on income as well, at least to the extent that society is involved in the production of personal income. If someone manages to live without any social input, there may be some justice in refusing to pay income taxes. But, 'without any social input' means giving up every tool and method that one has not made from scratch for oneself. That includes things like hammers, and the nails too. Being without social input initially reduces a person to a completely naked ape. I doubt whether there are 10 people on earth who qualify as 'without social input.'

The Cost

What I have tried to show in the foregoing is that claims about property are not reasons to prevent the Welfare State from taxing people to pay its costs. Ownership is a socially defined concept, not something each of us makes up. However, if we are inclined to believe the screams of the afflicted and relieve the pain of taxation, then we can undermine the funding basis of the Welfare State. In that case, we won't have one. (That is what has been going in the Bandit government.)

The critical issue is not property or ownership per se, but the extent of entitlement. Are people entitled - can they own - benefits such as unemployment compensation, retirement plan, medical care, etc? What people may own is, in turn, determined by our concept of human rights and our beliefs about the human condition. The issue is not property, but class relations within society.

There is also an empirical issue: whether the State has the resources to pay the benefits - the lifeboat problem. Trivially, everything is limited by available resources. All sorts of benefits depend upon the existence of surplus production that maintains the population. Conservatives believe the military and police are basic functions of the State, but they are wrong in their assessment. For example, you cannot have an army if every able hand must work on the farm all the time. Complex, modern societies assume a surplus of food and water, fiber for clothing, timber for housing and medicine to cure disease. Without those and other things, you cannot support an army.

I note that most of our ability to support people's needs is quite recent. For example, in the early 19^th century, most of the world's cities had no paid policemen or firemen; those were volunteer positions. The idea of paying retirement benefits was pioneered by Bismarck in the late 19^th century. Many other benefits of modern society were "invented" after the American Civil War, which shows that the ability of Western societies to provide benefits increased dramatically following the Industrial Revolution. The 20^th century has amplified and extended the process of industrialization, with mass production, automation and information systems, all of which have improved income and wealth exponentially. For the first time in human history, we have years without famine and pestilence. Since all of this is very recent, we don't know whether it is sustainable, or just a patch of good fortune.

So, part of my answer to the problem presented is that I don't know whether the Welfare State is sustainable. I do know it depends on economic conditions, and the high productivity of the post-modern work force. Most present Welfare States were impossible just 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago in most places, for lack of resources. Just one century is too short a period of history to determine whether an extensive Welfare State can be supported indefinitely. All I can do is assume that present conditions represent an economic floor for the foreseeable future. In other words, things will at least remain the same, or even get better. I have to recognize, however, that my assumption is subject to the unknown risks of bad management and unforeseeable social conditions.

Right now, I think most First World countries can afford a Welfare State, probably indefinitely if their economies are wisely and sustainably managed. I also think there is no philosophical reason preventing the taxation required to support the institutions of the Welfare State. This leaves the political question: what sort of society do people want to have?