Tue 15 Jan 2008
1. What’s your take on government welfare versus personal charity? Should it be the role of government to help the poor and needy or should individuals do it?
2. If you think individuals should care for the poor, do you think such a system is practical in today’s society?
3. Should people be forced to help the poor at all?
4. Is the government really wasteful? Would charities be more efficient? Would businesses?
Blatant ripoff: FMF
Posted by dbl4 answers so far!
1. In a Western Society such as our own, the government should do enough/its best to keep as many people off the streets as it can. If people choose not to take the welfare and stay on the streets anyway, that’s for them to decide. Anything beyond that is personal charity/choice.
2. It could be, but it’s not well managed. There’s a lot of mistrust of charities, a lot of cynicism and skepticism, and a lot of resentment at having certain amounts taken out of their paycheck monthly - “I already donate to XYZ, ABC needs to leave me alone” - never mind that they wouldn’t have made the donation themselves regardless. There needs to be some way to build up credibility; while the vast amount of charity choices is good in that it caters to a wide range of needs, it’s also a bit confusing and misleading. See: Givewell. In this case I’m more inclined to trust government taxation, and that’s something I never thought I’d say.
3. If you have the means to, a minimum contribution would be nice, yes. If you’re a struggling University student, focus on your grades. You can’t help others if you can’t help yourself?
4. Mm, can of worms.
1. I believe that the government should provide a safety net. And a cornerstone of that safety net would be universal health care. But I think a safety net ought not be so lavish that it makes private charity completely redundant.
2. I don’t think total reliance on private charity is feasible in a capitalist economy. If working on Wall Street has taught me anything, it’s that capitalism is very flawed but extremely powerful. It’s great at creating wealth, but awful at distributing it. A weak plea for charitable giving from individuals is not going to be sufficient for any long-term solutions. Though I hardly think a preference for a solid government-provided safety net is an indictment of capitalism, but merely a realistic approach to dealing with its flaws.
3. If taxation counts as forcing people to help the poor, then yes. Other than via taxation, no.
4. I don’t think the government is inherently less efficient than big business. That’s a standard right-wing platitude that really irks me. Big corporations can be stunningly inefficient. In fact, I think a universal health-care system would benefit from massive efficiency gains (both in terms of systems and economics of scale) and grant businesses greater efficiency by relieving them of HR burdens (not to mention a potentially healthier workforce).
I think of the distinction between the ideal roles of the state and of charity as sort of analogous to the difference between “justice” and “morality” (especially as described by J.S. Mill). To deal justly with someone is a duty, a “thing which may be exacted from a person, as one exacts a debt.” To act morally, on the other hand, is something which every person ought to do, which “we like or admire them for doing, perhaps dislike or despise them for not doing, but yet admit that they are not bound to do.” (J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 2nd ed., chapter V)
Similarly, I think the state should perform those actions which it is society’s duty to accomplish, things which we require of each other. The state is the sensible tool for this purpose, since it is the mechanism we have of requiring and guaranteeing things, either through its own actions or by creating and enforcing laws that force others to act in certain ways. Needless to say, the state should go about its business in as unintrusive and morally positive of a way as possible.
But those things which are morally right, but not part of “justice”, should fall to private individuals and charities, since otherwise we would be compelling people to do things which they do not have a duty to do.
The next question then, is to what extent it unjust to poor or needy people to not care for them. I would argue, “some”. Personally, I think that the government ought to guarantee (at leas heath care, education, and (some very limited) food and shelter to all its citizens, but that’s about it. (And progressive taxation is a topic for another day.) Caring for the needy in other ways is, while laudable, not required, and thus not the government’s job.
Start with these two sentences:
Everything flows down from them. It is the government’s job to secure everyone’s right to live freely and to pursue happiness. With that in mind,
1. Yes, since poverty and neediness detract from everyone’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the government should do what it can to help those in need. That shouldn’t prevent individuals from helping if they can and will.
2. Many people can and do help the poor: it may be part of their pursuit of happiness. My personal opinion is that individual efforts will not fix major societal problems, but I do what I can….
3. No.
4. Maybe, I don’t know. I don’t think a for profit company can do things like Medicare or Social Security. Imagine if Haliburton was running your insurance plan: do you think they would take care of you in your old age?