[lit-ideas] Re: The Welfare State vs the Individual
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 23:04:44 -0700
So you are willing to put up with less liberty if Welfare entitlements are
more extended and pervasive.
Consider the idea of people being able to invest their social security money
(liberty) being opposed by welfare oriented politicians (order). What about
being able to choose; so that those who won't to invest their money can, but
those who don't have to? The welfare contingent opposed that as well. They
don't trust ordinary people to do the right thing. They don't want them to
have the liberty to make that sort of choice because they are higher up the
welfare hierarchy and know what is best for the common people. This is an
example but I don't think it is an unfair example.
Now as to American poverty, I have been reading lately about how poorly the
European countries are doing economically compared to America, but
guaranteeing more entitlements their over-all economy doesn't fair as well
as America's. Thus, the unemployment rate is consistently better than the
European unemployment rate. I have done most of my research on France;
which rarely has an unemployment rate below 10%, but Europe as a whole has a
worse unemployment rate. I don't recall how well Sweden, Denmark & Norway
compare to the U.S. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is about 4.5%
which is considered full employment for some reason I can't recall.
The agencies that actually track poverty don't consider the relatively poor
in the U.S. to fit into their statistics. Our GDP per person was the
highest in the world except for a couple of small countries - I think
Luxembourg was one - can't recall the other.
What economists are seeing is that our increased liberty encourages
entrepreneurs more than in nations where the emphasis is upon entitlement.
Thus, other nations, even European nations, have difficulty competing with
us.
Now we do have some enclaves here and there where people have difficulty
getting off welfare and getting jobs, but that situation is worse in Europe
especially among the immigrants (read Muslim immigrants). In some European
cities above 40% of the immigrant men of working age are unemployed.
All evidence points to increased economic liberty being better at providing
higher percentages of GDP per person than more oversight and guaranteed
entitlements enabled by increased taxes.
I think we're going to have to move you closer to the order end of the
spectrum and me closer to the liberty end.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 7:40 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Welfare State vs the Individual
LH:
>> It [the Welfare State] is closer to the knowledge of what you need to
help and comfort you from the cradle to the grave. It has the power and the
money to take care of you. I would assume, although I can't recall a
specific discussion with Mike on this subject that he favors the Welfare
State over the form of government we have here in the U.S., but a Welfare
State is more intrusive than the U.S. Liberal Democracy. <<
I've proclaimed my preference for the Welfare State over laissez-faire
capitalism many, many times over the last few years, but as you say, I don't
recall any specific discussion 'tween us twa'. I do think you
mischaracterize-characterize the Welfare State with the old "cradle to
grave" epithet -- that's more true of the world of American Boards of
Directors than or any Welfare State population that I know of. When I talk
Welfare State I think Sweden, Denmark, Norway. Very liberal countries, very
welfare oriented. To one degree or another, almost all other Northern
European countries are very social liberal and are at least Welfare
Stateish. I've never lived in any of them, nor made any in-depth study of
the socio-economic implications of Welfarism. My older brother has lived in
Aarhus, Denmark for 42 years. He wouldn't live anywhere else. He and I are
a lot alike, so I think I'd probably find it agreeable too, though what I
deem to be social formalism compared to what I'd call American social open
endedness, might wear on me as constricting. But that's social conventions,
not social freedom. Further, I think you miss the boat when you equate
bureaucratic hoops with liberty. Complex social organization necessitates
bureaucracy to some degree -- the less the degree the better, I agree. But
the egregious poverty you see in parts of every American city and in many
rural areas are almost non-existent in the Welfare State countries. Unless
you can convince me that the poor are free, then I'd have to argue against
the notion that America is a more free society.
Mike Geary
Memphis
Other related posts:
