Public Assistance

In an economy where everyone shares equally in all that is produced, we would all starve. Individual responsibility is the source of all wealth.

There is such a thing as luck. But luck tends to be transient, and relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things. Even if that wasn't true, it might be best to ignore luck, precisely because it is something we cannot control. In order to have an impact, we need to focus on what we can control, even if factors beyond our control are more significant.

Wealth can sometimes be seen as prima facie evidence of bad behavior, committed by either the wealthy individual, or by his ancestors. By allowing the wealthy to keep their ill gotten gains, we might be enabling the bad behavior that gave rise to it.

I believe that is a reasonable concern, more so in some countries than in others. Unfortunately, we don't always agree on what constitutes bad behavior. Even when we do agree, identifying the point where all accounts have been squared can be problematic. Though we might try to address past injustices to some extent, at some point, we need to accept the status quo, and grandfather in some past injustices, in order to move forward.

In a competitive environment, there are bound to be losers as well as winners. We might point to poor people, and show that their poverty is really their own fault, with some justification. But even if they were to develop the requisite virtues, rather than eliminate poverty, those formerly poor would merely displace someone else. There are arguments that might be raised against this line of reasoning. But there is at least a certain amount of truth to it. For my purposes here, I will simply accept it.

A man who has nothing might become more responsible, in order to get something to eat. But it is more likely that he will engage in some kind of criminal activity. If we put him in prison, we have to feed him while he is incarcerated. Why not feed him now?

What if we feed him, but now he thinks we ought to give him a car? What if he wants to have sex with your daughter, whether she likes it or not? At some point, putting him in prison might be cheaper than continuing to appease him. And even if we are talking about something that isn't going to break the bank, excessive generosity sometimes encourages further demands. But if you can prevent a man from breaking into your home by buying him a cheeseburger, you would be foolish not to give him that cheeseburger.

It is entirely possible that giving him some food that he has not earned will destroy any incentive he might have had to go out and look for a job. If we feed him, he'll just spend the rest of his life relying on those handouts. If a few people decide to spend their lives relying on meager handouts, simply allowing them to do so is probably better than any of the alternatives.

I do not believe making the government the employer of last resort, possibly by requiring people to work in order to receive benefits, is a good idea. That kind of employment is nothing like the employment one is likely to find on the outside, and any lessons learned would probably be counter productive more often than not.

I also do not believe welfare recipients should be required to take drug tests. The argument that I raised in favor of feeding people is more valid, rather than less so, if we are talking about drug addicts. If I allow another man to contract a contagious disease, because I am overly concerned that he might not deserve the medicine, I am foolishly endangering my own health. I believe accepting the fact that some people are going to get some help they didn't deserve is one of the prices we must pay for our own prosperity.

Up to this point, I have been explaining to conservatives, why they ought to support some kind of public assistance. But in no way am I advocating an increase in the minimum wage, which I consider to be little more than an infantile attack on employers.

Some people like to point out that many Walmart employees are receiving public assistance, and suggest that the taxpayers are thereby subsidizing Walmart, due to its failure to provide its employees with an adequate wage. While I would agree that society, as a whole, has a duty to provide a minimum level of sustenance to all its members, employers have no such obligation. I am not opposed to all labor legislation. But I do believe the minimum wage is something that we would be better off without.

While I support the concept of public assistance, I think the programs we have now are poorly designed, and often counter productive. Let's say a single mother works two jobs, and receives food stamps. She decides to squirrel away some money, so she will be prepared when her car quits running. Unfortunately, she will end up losing her benefits, once she has too much money saved up. She actually has to mismanage her affairs, in order to continue to receive benefits. Also, while she is free to use her benefits to purchase soft drinks, she may not use them to purchase tooth paste or toilette paper.

I think we should abolish the food stamp program, and instead give every U.S. citizen, who resides in the United States, a monthly check. We aren't worried about Social Security recipients taking their money out and buying booze with it. If that is what someone chooses to do with their money, that is their own business. Taking away that option discourages individual responsibility, instead of encouraging it.

Wouldn't the cost be prohibitive? Actually, it needn't cost any more than what we are doing now. If your taxes increase by $200 a month, and you receive a $200 check in the mail, it's a wash. That is money you were going to spend on food anyway. Some would pay more than they receive, while others would receive more than they pay. But I believe, compared to the system we have now, this program would benefit rich and poor alike. While tax revenues and public expenditures would increase, the overall cost to taxpayers would not.