‘The Welfare State’
by Craig L. Bosley, MD
“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
~ James Madison, 4th US President
Shouldn’t those advocating the United States continue its ever-expanding welfare state look more closely at what is happening in Europe under the staggering weight of its “cradle to grave” welfare mentality? Though it sounds charitable and caring, is “cradle to grave” welfare possible? How long can you sustain giving people more than they earn? When you pay people to do less, don’t they do less and continually demand more?
And even if we ignore the history of failed welfare states, don’t we have a problem with our Constitution? Creating a welfare state is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress, nor was it intended to be, despite the Supreme Court so eloquently massaging the words of the Constitution to make it say what it wanted.
One of the last Presidents who believed his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution was Grover Cleveland. I suspect he read the Constitution rather than blindly deferring to the politically appointed Supreme Court “experts” to tell him what it said, because he refused to allow Congress to expand beyond its constitutionally limited powers, saying, “. . . though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.”
I doubt he could tolerate our modern federal government usurping the power of the Constitution from the states, making the states and the people subservient to it, while expanding its power and the personal wealth and power of those we elected to serve us.
In H.L. Mencken’s book about Cleveland, A Good Man in a Bad Trade, he described those who have followed Cleveland, saying, “The Presidency is now closed to the kind of character that he had so abundantly.” Haven’t the actions of many Presidents and Congresses, with the help of politically appointed Supreme Court justices, modified President Cleveland’s statement to now say, “The people are to support the Government, which in turn will support the people (in exchange for votes)?”
Our leaders continue to believe we will never run out of Peters to pay Pauls, convinced Margaret Thatcher was incorrect when she said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Maybe this is why the European welfare states are failing. Can’t we recognize the problem when we view the sometimes-violent protests occurring across Europe whenever a government finally realizes it cannot continue to give people more than they earn? They ran out of Peters, and the Pauls think that is unfair.
Though uncomfortable to consider, are we that different from those demonstrating Europeans? If we were honest with ourselves, don’t each of us have a dollar amount that would allow us to justify taking “free” money from the government rather than working? And might we protest just as vehemently if our gravy train stopped?
Lawrence Reed, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, suggested that Cleveland, along with President Van Buren, would define antipoverty as “liberty,” further defining liberty as “self-reliance, work, and entrepreneurship; civil society, a strong and free economy; and government confined to its constitutional role as protector of that liberty.”
Aren’t these words more constitutionally compatible than “welfare state,” “entitlement,” “cradle to grave,” and “free money?” Was Reed correct saying, “Our Founders knew that a government that . . . confuses rights with wants will yield financial ruin at best and political tyranny at worst?”
Does a welfare state remove people’s pride and self-sufficiency, reducing them to indentured-servants to the government? Does a welfare state replace people’s independence with voting for whoever promises them the most for “free?” Does a welfare state help people get back on their feet or does it make sure people can never get back on their feet?
Dr. Craig Bosley practiced medicine in Pocatello for 30 years, recently moving home to Kearney, Nebraska. You can email him at craig@craigbosley.com. His columns, email subscriptions and podcasts are available at www.craigbosley.com.
Craig,
You do bring up some valid and interesting points concerning the defining role of government. One major factor which is often swept under the rug in discussing the American Revolution was the Crown Policy at the end of the French and Indian War to bar further migration into Indian territory by the white settlers. This in turn created animosity toward the Crown. But for almost two hundred years after the American Revolution ‘land’
was the measure not only of wealth but of the ability to make a go of it. And all the Western lands were under the benevolent auspices of government.
When Abraham lincoln signed theHomestead Act into Law in 1862 one major stipulation was that the recepient of the 160 acres never took up arms against the government of the U.S.
Theoritically it provided the same impetus as you say here; that there is a benefit in abiding by the laws of the land.
And in the idea of a Welfare State it is quite a broad definition. One law is that no oneoutside of the law shall gain any benefit from the Food Stamp program. So what that translates to is that the starving and the unemployed shall not indulge in criminal behavior by robbery or thievery or fraud or malicious intent to stave off starvation.
The Homestead Act was abolished in 1979, so that recourse in America is gone. During the Great Depression criminal activity reached new heights in America. People like Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, and Al Capone were fold heroes. Oddly enough the only thing that brought millions out of malnutrition and starvation was World War 11. And in Germany, Hitler brought his people out of mass starvation by building a great war machine and indulged in rape and robbery of the rest of Europe. germany in effect became a bandit nation.
And there is the other side of the coin which is quite prevalent in America, the Welfare State of the rich. These Federal Lands who are no longer given to the landless or now the sole use of the ranchers and the livestock corporations. That large ranches are nowed and operated not by individuals but by large corporations who have the power to influence
legislative decisions based on vested private industry.
The government subsidizes oil, mining, lumber,
fisheries,transportation, all for the benefit of private industry. Resources lost to the American people number in the trillions of dollars.
So it is a matter of definition isn’t it?
The question is how can you on the one hand condone a political philosophy that would bring nothing but violence starvation and the reign of the crimal element on the one hand, and in the same token condone the accumulation of Americas vast public resources in the hands of the few rich and powerful?
I think there is plenty of welfare to go around – politicians buy our votes and those who have the money buy the politicians vote – the only real winner – the politician.
Craig
Ranger,
Plenty of land still owned by the feds and they want to keep it, but a lot is in places where giving 160 acres gains you nothing but a lot of trouble with all the federal agencies over you.
Seems the EPA and the interior department guarantee it will remain federal lands as no one can possibly make a living on them given the onerous rules they write. Has to remain pristine, good luck on your next crop they’ll demand a study be made before you can plant it.
If you want to starve in the U.S. right now, you really have to work at it. There are places that all you have to do is show up at the front door and walk in, no 1040 required and you get fed, they’ll even bring you things wherever you’re at. No questions asked. You need food stamps just show up at the social security place with a hard luck story and you’re out the door with stamps in hand. If you have to steal or rob when you’re unemployed then if you do the crime, you do the time. Nobody starves in this country except children with parents too lazy to get up and fix them breakfast, so the schools have to feed them for example. We have an obesity epidemic in the U.S. and yes a bunch are on food stamps. Signs all over down here at fast food places, 7/11s saying they accept food stamps and Lone Star EBT cards. That’s the last place they should be spending our tax money. Let them exchange it for rice/beans and milk. I never had welfare growing up but my fare was things like that because money was scarce.
When there are more who vote for a living then those who work for a living, then we’re going down a repossessed road in this country. Bumps in the road will get bigger until one of them takes us out in one fell swoop.
There’s plenty of welfare to go around, unfortunately there’s too many too lazy to work who think it’s their job. When the government tells those who PAID in advance, no choice for something that it’s an “entitlement” that can be taken away if they don’t get to borrow more money but then don’t threaten those on welfare with the same consequence, something is horribly wrong. When paid for is hostage to those who paid nothing, things need to change and bad.
Welcome to the 2nd Greece.
I’m with Dr. Bosley.
Disgusted ,
I bet with some work we could get you to come out if your shell and say what you think !!!!!!
Craig
Two presidential candidates come to the fore. One supports the status quo of the food stamp program, and even wants to expand it. The other also supports the status quo, but is more incline to inhibit growth or even scale the program back somewhat.
A man, on food stamps, is at home watching his TV as these two candidates duke it out. For him the decision on how to vote isn’t hard, and therein lies the problem.
Ike,
It frightened when I saw a woman say she was voting for the man who gave her a free cell phone.
Craig
ike,
True.
I grew up in a house with no electricity or running water, i.e. no TV. Built myself a crystal radio (no battery) as a child and opened up a whole new world. Fibber McGee and Mollie for starters. Sat and waited for the inevitable crash at the end.
Now the people on food stamps, sitting in a Sec. 8 housing with WIC and welfare watch cable TV and get on their computers and call others racist & worse who demand they get their life in order?
I was lucky if I got a single orange as one of my Christmas presents. More often I didn’t as they were too expensive. No ice cream cones, they were a whole nickel back then. I worked as a child opening and closing irrigation sluice gates for a nickel or dime a day. Saved a whole $13 one year and then couldn’t bring myself to spend any of it.
We were never on welfare but the good christian man who my mother worked for put extra in her pay envelope when he could. God bless him. He liked beer and was LDS but he was better than a bunch, beer and all. I still admire him, he was one of my heroes growing up. His wife found out once and laid into him and he still put extra in the envelope when he could. We need more like him today.
As long as politicians can buy us with our own money this will continue.
Dr. Bosley,
You lost that bet. But, keep working at it.
Raining here today, real rain. Not virga.
Craig,
Even if the people we are talking about represents 10% of the electorate (a conservative estimate, I’m guessing), this is still extremely bothersome to me.
Disgusted,
Don’t the politicians buy people with other people’s money?
Craig
Craig:
What you have touched upon is the “general welfare clause” which states “promote the general welfare” as opposed to “provide for the general welfare” of citizens.
Subsequent postings regarding the enabling of dependency as opposed to independence and self-reliance are all well-founded.
Those postings seem to focus exclusively on direct cash assistance or income redistribution via food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc. to the low income population.
I would just remind those that are quick to bring up the low-income among us as being enabled to dependency, there does exist a different type of enabling in terms of guarantee of profit, shifting of external costs, or absolving an individual and/or entity to proportional responsibility for governmental essential services that is every bit a part of entitlement as direct cash assistance programs.
Whether we are talking about principles of constitutional government or the free market, those principles can only be upheld with exercise of virtue.
We have created a dependency of industry on government to guarantee profits or absolve themselves of consequences for bad business choices via governmental assistance not that much different than cash assistance programs to the poor. We have created by means of tax policy by which the wealthy or legal entities can absolve themselves of proportional obligations in order to relegate those disproportionally obligations to the rest of the citizenry. The rest of the citizenry usually being what is left of the middle class.
Idaho Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians will cite the communist boogey man or socialist conspirators of mystic forces as the cause for our gravitation from free market principles of Adam Smith or Constitutional principles of the founding fathers. This is warped sense of reality to rationalize the sense of their own form of entitlement.
The reason that Great Society programs for the low income citizens have become attractive is due to the very failure of the market manipulated by industry, the wealthy, etc.
Unionization became attractive because of bad management of industry that sought exploitation and absolution of responsibility and integrity when operating in an unregulated market which made regulation attractive. Not because of the socialist boogey man that is a figment of the conservative’s imagination.
The Affordable Health Care Act has become attractive because the medical industrial complex has found a way to use our own sense of mortality to indenture us to the exclusive advancement of their financial interests over pragmatic and non-self serving practice of medicine. We are have indentured 20% of our GDP to medical care that provides substandard outcomes that makes the current system ran by a quasi monopoly of the AMA, not because of some communist plot hatched by Barack Obama. And truth be told the Affordable Health Care Act will only serve to further enable indentured servitude of the citizenry to the medical industrial complex. Remember, the Rx and Insurance industry has endorsed the law. If you forensically account for the campaign contributions, the Rx and Insurance industries stand to gain quite a bit from the law. I know this will come as a shock to Democrats and liberals who consider the Affordable Health Care Act the holy grail of healthcare for everyone which is anything but affordable.
When the citizenry from any segment no longer wants to adhere to specific virtues, the Constitution can longer be sustained; it is not because of the communist boogey man or a socialist plot that has become more attractive to those hurt by lack of virtue. Something conservatives, particularly libertarians and Idaho Republicans, can not bring themselves to admit or acknowledge.
Jayson,
You are depressing. Maybe we are in the final stage of our empire.
Craig Bosley says:
February 11, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Disgusted,
Don’t the politicians buy people with other people’s money?
True, we borrow it from the Chinese mainly. It used to be “our” money until we bought all the stuff Made In China and then it became “their” money. And now they want “their money” plus interest to use it.
I just filed my IRS return for the year. I got a tax increase and no, I don’t make 250K a year, not even close. They told me to withhold more last year so I did, it wasn’t enough for them. I gave up long ago trying to figure out federal taxes. That from the guy who took care of IRS computers for over 29 years. I used to know where in the program each line on the 1040 appeared, but with 70,000+ pages of tax law and increasing no one knows where anything is, just the fact it has to be fed more debt or ??? And if I don’t agree my SS will be withheld but welfare will be paid first?
I view it as MY money until someone can convince me that I don’t deserve it, no matter how many years I worked or saved or whatever, I earned it. Of 14 guys I worked with over the years I’m the only one comfortably retired, ie. no mortgage, no car payment, just taxes to pay each year, which always go up. I figure the government takes about 35% or more of what I saved for retirement, because???? just because. I can’t afford the government any more. The guys I worked with invested in stock, money markets and lost their principal. They bought big houses, big cars and now can’t afford them. And they vote for a living now. Call it what you like, it’s not good.
I knew a bunch of people who retired to Mexico that are coming back here because that may have been cheaper but the social aspects sucked. They live crammed in travel trailers that now cost $250 a month just to park, but cheap at $250 or less a month to buy. Cheaper than a house to air condition too. Expenses rise to meet income.
Groceries went up. We can play that game. They wanted $1 for a small avocado so we stopped buying them, they sit and rot in the store now. Price is down to 75 cents and still we don’t buy. Mr H.E. Butt is a billionaire and growing, he doesn’t deserve that much. He has stores in Mexico too. His sons are too greedy. Not so much, who did they buy, but why do we have make them billionaires, when we’re just trying to get by each day? What did they do to deserve the huge amount they take from everyone. Albertson and similar stores are gone, we’re stuck with them. It’s going to be an ugly divorce on day.
The politicians certainly buy a voter base for them with MY money, got that right. Mr. Meline has bogey men he can blame, I have specific names on my bogey men.
Wife just bought some planters, we’re going back into gardening and raising our own things. Now if we don’t run out of water we’ll be OK. Send rain. Looks like we’re sending more snow NE from here today. I enjoy tomatoes that taste like tomatoes. Darned A&M bred out the taste with their hybrids. Smokey won’t like that remark, I guarantee it.
Money is a curse in our time. More-so than in the past. I can go back to what I grew up with, but I’d prefer not to. I suspect my children and grandchildren won’t know how to cope with things I accepted as normal.
Now tell me I’m depressing too.
Craig:
I’m not trying to depress anyone. Actually, I see great opportunity if we as a nation really want to seize upon opportunity for improvement. It is frustrating to see the great opportunity that is out there for us as a nation to progress rather than regress.
However, I believe in pragmatism and confronting reality rather than trying to defy it which is the mantra of our current leadership in all disciplines and segments of our society.
Being pragmatic does not equate to being negative or depressing. But in order to be successful you have to keep it real. We are not doing that as a society and a nation. The truth is like antiseptic. It burns like hell, but its cleansing power can bring long-term and sustained recovery.
Politically, I truly believe Democrats and Republicans are the consummate obfuscators that attempt to dodge responsibility while clamoring for rights of their constituencies. Their core and nefarious purpose is to defy reality and deny the truth.
I can’t support that even though, pragmatically, my choices of individuals to support have party affiliation from which I must choose.
I was a Republican until I moved back home to Idaho and witnessed an incredible display of intellectual and character dishonesty not to mention elective ignorance regarding the Constitution and governance void of pragmatics.
When I point out to both Democrats and Republicans or Liberals and Conservatives, it’s amazing the level offense taken by them for simply applying pragmatism and the truth. It did not always used to be that way. You could belong to either party and not be marginalized or punished for independence. As a matter of fact, independence in both parties was welcomed and was an asset. That is no longer the case which is also part of our problem from a political standpoint which in turn leads to misapplication to principles and virtues necessary to preserve Constitutional government and an honest market of prosperity.
With that said, no need to be depressed. There is much good that can be done within one’s means to do so.
I personally do what I can within my station in life which pretty much is focusing on the home first and just trying to do right by others no matter how imperfect I am.
Jayson,
Historical references are made to a particular culture that drop of suddenly due to various factors that the culture in question isn’t able to deal with and suffer as a result. These factors can be entirely out of their hands, (e.g. a drought), or something of their own making (e.g. an overuse of a dwindling resource), or something in between (e.g. an invasion from a neighboring culture).
As the human culture has progress through the ages, “progress” is a slippery word that is difficult to define. But my definition is this: progress is made when our ability to deal with problems is better today than it was yesterday.
The problems we face are indeed big, but I’m with you: we can tackle it. We’ve progressed to a point where we can deal with this and worse. Besides, in perspective, our problems are tiny.
Mr. Meline,
prag·mat·ic” Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
Did something unusual for me tonight, I listened to the State of the Union message from the president and came away thinking, talk is cheap. Good speech, well delivered but a tad short on practical solutions offered. Lots of emotional and PC words going nowhere in particular. Applaud all you want, the work aspect comes without applause.
And then I got to listen to Marco Rubio reply to the speech and I got to hear the practical rather than the other side I had just heard. More reassured by his presentation and no, I’m not a republican, so save the taunt for someone who cares for childish remarks like that.
The media immediately focused on the fact he took a drink of water near the end, which was not the least bit helpful. Who cared?
I agree with ike that progress is a slippery word that is difficult to define. However, I heard how to deal with a lot of things better from one side than from the other. Unfortunately yesterday is gone and past and won’t come back.
Problems are bigger, getting bigger. I’d love to view them in the ‘tiny’ perspective but haven’t figured out how yet.
Sober day down here today. “Melissa Mitchell bought an American flag on her lunch break Tuesday, on her way to the corner of Seventh Street and Interstate 35 in downtown Austin.
There, she stood and waited with her arms stretched high above her head, clutching the corners of the flag so it fluttered in the wind. After the white hearse carrying Chris Kyle’s casket passed by, she cried, explaining that her son was in the U.S. Naval Academy.
She was among hundreds who gathered along the interstate and near the Texas State Cemetery in East Austin to honor the decorated sniper and former Navy SEAL who was killed at a North Texas gun range this month. A 25-year-old Iraq War veteran has been charged in the Feb. 2 killing of Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield.
“This is a way of showing that we are American,” said Judy McCleod, who waited for the funeral procession on the Old Settlers Boulevard bridge in Round Rock.
Parents brought their children, not because they would understand, or even remember, but because they said it was important.
Mike Lamb brought a sign wishing Kyle fair winds and calm seas.
For some, the sidewalks were a place to grieve. For others, they were a forum to talk about mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder and whether the government was taking good enough care of veterans. One mother, Camerie Young, worried that anti-gun advocates would use Kyle’s shooting as a soapbox.
“I have a child and I want to protect her, and I don’t want my rights to be taken away to do that,” she said.
But as more than 80 motorcycles roared around the corner in downtown Austin toward the cemetery about noon, the crowd waiting on Seventh Street quieted. It was the final leg of a 200-mile funeral procession from Arlington, where nearly 7,000 people attended a service for Kyle on Monday at Cowboys Stadium…..
When the procession arrived in Austin, veterans saluted and women waved as cars and buses followed.
“Thank you for your support,” one man called from the window of a passing SUV. “Thank you for your support. God Bless you.”
Bagpipers led Kyle’s casket, draped in an American flag, to his burial site. Lines of uniformed military personnel stood at attention. As has become tradition, many of the Navy SEALs took off their Trident pins and pounded them with their fists into the coffin.
Patriot Guard Riders, motorcyclists who attend funerals to honor fallen U.S. military personnel and to keep protesters at bay, kept watch. The burial was closed to the public, but people clustered outside.
Vietnam veteran Edward Lozano was still on Seventh Street as the funeral started. After the final car in the procession passed the corner where he had stood since 8:45 a.m., he sat in the chair he had brought with him to the curb.
“We’ve sent him home,” he struggled to say through tears. “We’ve paid our respects.” Austin American Statesman.
We don’t divide ourselves down here, we’re all Americans here. Tomorrow is another day.
Hi Craig,
You repeat the charge of the failed European welfare state, but you don’t ever back it up.
Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that the most successful economy in Europe today is Sweden, one of the most successful welfare states in human history.
The Nordic countries, while having the highest taxes, also have the lowest national debt. Opposed to Spain and Greece, they also have low unemployment rates, lower the U.S. Germany’s unemployment went steadily down all during the Great Recession.
“Disgusted” always mentions Greece, and now the focus is on Spain. Banks run amok was Spain’s undoing. Under its former socialist government Spain actually had a lower annual deficit than Germany. As I have argued in this space on several occasions, the Euro Crisis is a a banking scandal not a failure of the welfare state.
The European welfare states have lower medical costs and better health statistics, lower abortion and teen births rates, far lower STDs, and much better child well being. And of course their incarceration rates are about 10 times less than ours. No social failures here.
And you sir always mention Sweden as if it’s the only country in Europe.
I have friends who couldn’t wait to get out of the “heavens” you list. They regretted horribly the fact they had accepted a transfer there over the years. Heaven is not just in the things you note, hell is in a lot of things you ignore. Got 1.4 million not illegal not immigrants to send to live with you. Show us how you can get past that one without gagging on it.
Quick exchange your dollars for Euros. When everyone lays a pit for their neighbor incarceration of the entire populace is not feasible.
Quick move to France and pay 75% taxes, only fair. Pretty soon Belgium will sink further into the sea from all of the people moving there. But they have enough spare change to invade Mali? No place on this earth is without problems, pick which ones you can live with. Seems you’re still here in the U.S. and appear not willing to follow what you write about.
Nick:
I’m not sure how Craig would respond.
In terms of measurable outcomes, there would be no dispute on my part regarding the measurable outomes, as established by the social sciences, as it pertains to the Nordic countries of my direct ancestory.
However, there is something much more profound from a moral values standpoint that transcends the social sciences and induced outomes of measurable outcomes void of societal or individual values by which the United States has strived to set itself apart from the European model.
You state:
“The Nordic countries, while having the highest taxes, also have the lowest national debt.”
European societies generally have demonstrated they do not believe in individual responsibility based on virtuous self initiative coupled with non-coerced and unwritten social compacts to achieve the general welfare of society, but rather induced personal responsibility by means of passive aggressive coercive measures of the state to achieve collective responsibility as a complete replacement for individual responsibility to provide for the general welfare of society.
Of course European countries can achieve lower debt through greater compulsory taxation that place more of a premium on induced collective responsibility rather than promote general welfare via virtuous personal responsiblity where one without coerced inducement is his/her brother’s keeper rather than the government forcing everyone without self-initiative born of virtue to be the keeper of others or assume the consequences of the choice of others without personal accountability for those choices.
I’m positive the US could erase its external debt if it adopted the model of Nordic countries, but there is something of intrinsic moral value that would be lost in the process notwithstanding laudable measurable outcomes by a pure social science arbitrary judgment.
Lower unemployment is being achieved because of labor contraction in European markets. Europe’s indigenous population is declining and birth rates are not keeping up with death rates which is challenging the utopia of the cradle to grave guarantees. Sweden has bolstered its labor force via immigration to sustain the welfare state because it understands the actuary science of sustainability necesary to maintain exclusive collective responsbility as a substitute for uncoerced personal responsibility born of moral values that transcend measurable outcomes via social science that consider moral values benign to the means utilized to achieve the outcomes.
Incarceration rates are 10 times less because Europe has decriminalized many individual actions based upon moral relativism and the adoption of less importance on personal responsbility for adverse actions towards others by mitigating adverse consequences for personal choice.
Don’t get me wrong, the US correctional justice industrial complex could utilize some elements of how we handle criminalized acts that Europe has chosen to decriminalize to achieve better measurable outcomes like incarceration rates. But I believe Europe has gone to the extreme in general of mitigating personal consequences or delegated personal consequence to collective consequence for personal choices.
The European or Canadian model for healthcare has elements of merit to it.
Because US society has gradually gravitated away from personal responsibility and virtue necessary to sustain an integratable free enterprise system and Constitutional government, the socialist model of Europe is becoming more attractive.
A concept I point out to my conservative friends and lunatic Idaho Republican party adherents that just drives them nuts and they cannot bring themselves to accept.
However, promotion of socialism that you advocate is just as much a falsehood as the disciples of exclusive libertarianism. They exclusively are false doctrines.
As a pragmatist, we need to preserve as much as we can the principles of self reliance, individual responsiblity and appropriate consequence and individual accountability. However, when the industrial complexes of medicine, education, correctional and justice, and finance that have been allowed to manipulate market and walk away from unwriten social compact due to lack of integrity and virtue, the consequence may require greater regulation and coercive measures of the state which I believe is where we find ourselves.
It really boils down to do you believe in personal responsibility born of uncoerced adoption of personal virtue that promotes and ultimately achieves on principle the general welfare that is achieved through unwriteen social compact; or do you believe in exclusive collective responsbility whereby personal responsbility is induced by coercive measures of the state and consequences of choice and accountability are absorbed by the application of moral relatism that creates a facade of unsustainable long-term security?
Hi Jayson,
Thanks for your comments. They are always insightful and respectful.
Contrary to what you claim, I do not recommend socialist solutions, and neither do any of the contemporary European countries. I of course insist on the dictionary definition of socialism as the state ownership of the means of production. Even though some European countries have some ownership in various economic entities, there is no way they can be called socialist. Airbus is quite correct to say that tax breaks and other goodies U.S. states give to Boeing is just a “socialist.”
The free market with appropriate regulation is the best way to produce and distribute basic goods.
But I’m a pragmatist just as you are. If state ownership of passenger trains/mass transit get the transportation job done, then that should be the choice. Thatcher’s privatizing British railways has been a disaster (I can give you the figures), but European pubic railway freight is equally problematic. Private railway freight has been a success, but the government did have to bail out Conrail.
I agree with you that socialism and libertarianism are false doctrines. They have both been disconfirmed by experience, and the most successful societies have followed the Middle Way between these extremes.
I totally reject your theory that the Europeans have somehow waive their rights to personal responsibility and virtue. Does a 20 percent increase in taxation from the U.S. 30 percent to the Nordic 50 percent magically make Danes less responsible and virtuous? That of course is absurd. With regard to teen births and STDs, Europeans youth are much more responsible than their American counterparts.
I surprised that you claim that lower incarceration rates are due to decrimalization. It is still against the law to murder, to assault, to rob, and to defraud in Europe. What major differences can you cite? Only Portugal has decriminalized drugs, so that can’t be it. And does our high recidivism rate jibe with your views of American personal responsibility. European prisoners return to society, and for the most part, do not re-offend. Most of ours go right back to crime.
Even most Europeans have given up on the church, they still live by a secularized Christian ethic that leads to strong families and far less violent crime than the U.S.
Do you have any evidence there is greater moral relativism in Europe than in the U.S.? I believe I have a reference to a study that shows that the French, of all people, have more conservative views of sexual relations.
I have an appointment and I don’t have time to proofread this.
Nick:
Unlike what we find in political circles of Idaho, I always enjoy and appreciate your insight regardless of level of agreement I may have.
My proofreading is not the best these days, as I need to head off to my 3rd job to make ends meet within today’s American dream.
I think based on your defense of the collectivist model of Europe, it is easy to surmise or assume advocacy for the academic definition of socialism. With that said, and unlike our fanatical conservative neighbors, I think I can grasp your personal position.
I believe I did not say Europeans have waived their rights to personal responsibility. As I review my admitted unproofread post, I believe I stated:
“. . . induced personal responsibility by means of passive aggressive coercive measures of the state to achieve collective responsibility as a complete replacement for individual responsibility to provide for the general welfare of society.”
“. . . induced collective responsibility rather than promote general welfare via virtuous personal responsiblity where one without coerced inducement is his/her brother’s keeper rather than the government forcing everyone without self-initiative born of virtue to be the keeper of others or assume the consequences of the choice of others without personal accountability for those choices.”
Taxation is a coercive means by which one is induced to be responsible to absorb the external costs as a consequence to the choices of others; or the delegation of personal responsbility to the state for one’s well being or essential needs rather than manage one’s needs and resources for oneself.
There is nothing absurd in stating the Danes, Swedes, or French to varying degrees have opted for coerced collective responsiblity over a greater degree of self-incentivized personal responsiblity to secure essential services or management of resources of sustainability. The European model and cultural norms of greater collective responsibility does not absolve complete personal responsbility, but it most certainly erodes in very passive aggressive or subtle ways the motivating factors of virtues such as charity, thrift, or self-reliance to be personally responsible for individual choice and consequences.
With that said, I fully recognize there has to be varying degrees of coercive means applied to individual citizens to achieve societal order and sustainability in terms of infrastructure or concentrated resources due to human nature in terms of greed, unbridled self-interest, etc.
The evidence of greater moral relativism is stated in your prior paragraph “they still live by a secularized Christian ethic.”
The term “secularized Christian ethic” is somewhat of an oxymoron based on admitted application of my personal faith with the operative word “secularized.”
Secularization of the Christian faith is a form of rationalization which is indeed the application of moral relativism which we are seeing as being increasingly embraced in the US.
I’m sorry, I simply don’t have the academic studies or time to track down what I have researched in the past these days.
But this would be my response to you at this time based on your post which I do appreciate.
Time to get out the door and ride the hampster wheel of futility these days within the American dream at 1 of my 3 dead end jobs.
Look forward to further discusion on this and many more topics.
Jayson
Hi Jayson,
Quoting back your own words does not solve your problem.
Over many decades an average of 80-90 percent of the Nordic voting public have freely voted and taken personal responsibility for electing governments that provide for the general welfare with their explicit permission. There is nothing coerced about this, except for the minority who did not vote for the major parties. No different than the 47 percent of Americans who are now forced to live with a Democratic Senate and President.
As I pointed out earlier, surveys of which I’m aware find no significant difference between American and European commitment to moral relativism. And the positive social statistics show that one can easily argue that, overall Europeans, are more virtuous.
There is nothing illogical about calling this a general Judeo-Christian morality that has become a habit, even though belief in Christian doctrine is low. Confucian and Daoist morality is still strong after 60 years of Communist rule. The Communist finally gave up and established government bureaus to support the major religions, including Christianity. Of course those who don’t follow their rules are sometimes severely punished.
In nearly a life-long study of religion (Disgusted is right that I did not make an engineer’s salary, but nonetheless enjoyed it thoroughly), I have found that the best religions are those that emphasis practice (orthopraxis) rather than doctrine (orthodoxy). The latter focus has produced lots of religiously motivated violence, the topic of my current book project. Draft chapters can be read at http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/orv.htm.
30% voted for Obama and roughly 43% of eligible voters didn’t vote at all and the remainder 27% voted for Romney. 84% of a Congress that had as low as single digit approval ratings were put back into office by the same people. With all due respect about 70% have to put up with the consequences of those statistics which basically said 30% got to say where we go or don’t go in the next 4 years and 70% don’t. Don’t ask why the 43% didn’t vote, you might miss why or worse yet not like the reason why. When the biggest bloc of voters doesn’t vote, something is horribly wrong and no amount of scouring the dictionary accounts for it. Rationalization produces some ugly results in this life, we might have just seen the election that proved it.
I’m with Jayson, respectfully or not is up to you.
Years ago I read extensively on websites that you published on and got to know you a bit more than you know me. I wasn’t impressed with the path you took nor the things you gloss over. High IQ, lower EQ. So sure of yourself that you still went with some things and got the result they brought but convinced yourself you were doing it the right way even though you got the wrong result more than once it appears. Coming up on 50 years in one you appear not to have figured out yet.
When you wax philosophical and wordy you tend to go the rationalization route. When you sit and write stories about good people you’ve met and some of the good things they’ve accomplished, I’m more than willing to meet you on that path.
Existentially yours, a guy in Texas who made the engineers salary and enjoyed it thoroughly while practicing what I preached in real time. Got an A+ in philosophy but for all the wrong reasons.
Added your book project to my reading list, it’s grows exponentially. Might take awhile. “She?” Not off to a good start.
Perhaps you and I could join disparate forces and convince Mr. Meline to become a tad blind and put his talents to helping a lot of people in the political arena? I like how he can come up with 10 things to my 1.
Nick:
“Quoting back your own words does not solve your problem.”
Actually, the issue of excercised virtue regardless of society or culture as it pertains to individual or collective responsibilty is not just my problem, it is the age old problem of humankind.
Coercion takes many forms in any society or polity.
I believe I stated, “coerced inducement” as well as “passive aggressive coercive measures.”
Whether we are talking Europe or the US these days, democratic elements can be a facade to a manipulated electorate that is lulled gradually and generationally into ceded individual responsibility for collectively responsibility with greater ceded control given to the state to insure collective responsibility that co-opts personal responsibility.
There are subtleties within the democratic process to achieve manipulation of that process that is not obvious when it occurs.
“As I pointed out earlier, surveys of which I’m aware find no significant difference between American and European commitment to moral relativism.”
Based on the current affairs of the US, I agree. We are looking more like Europe and many parts of the world where I have worked and traveled each and everyday.
“And the positive social statistics show that one can easily argue that, overall Europeans, are more virtuous.”
If one views those statistics by any social science methodology that aligns with one’s preferred worldview, I’m sure in the eyes of that beholder Europeans are more virtuous.
I don’t care whether we are talking about a more individualistic or colectivist culure, whether we are talking Judeo Christian, Muslim, Budhist, Hindu, etc; I don’t think any singular society can claim greater and sustained virtue over another.
“I have found that the best religions are those that emphasis practice (orthopraxis) rather than doctrine (orthodoxy).”
I agree. It has also been my experience that regardless of religion there is always the element of hypocrisy, looking beyond the mark of the doctrine, or the falling short of the ideal preached in just about any religion out there including my own faith of choice.
However, I’m greatful to pertain to a faith that precisely does emphasize orthopraxis based upon the doctrine rather than strict orthodoxy even though I fully recognize many of my faith including myself in many areas fall short in the area of orthopraxis.
Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading it further when I have a break.
Like I said before, look forward to further discussion.