Are Entitlements Virtuous?
A fascinating exchange from the Satz On Markets Econtalk podcast. Satz is Debra Satz, Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society at Stanford. Roberts is, of course, Russ Roberts of rapping economists fame.
Roberts: ... if the state intervenes [to e.g. assist those without healthcare], state intervention produces a certain quality of experience for that person that's very different from the quality they'd have in a charitable solution. ... But when I think about, as a taxpayer, what I'm doing for poor people through health programs and I think about how the actual bureaucracy works, and it's not as glorious and ennobling as we might think about it in theory, and I compare that to a world where individuals are motivated to help their fellow human beings, we lose something when we go to that bureaucratic, coercive world. And I find that people who don't like markets often don't recognize that. Do you agree that that's an issue?
Satz: I'm less fond of the charitable solution mostly because I think there's a demeaning relationship between the recipient and the donor in a charity case. Because the recipient is dependent. In the same way you might worry about government creating dependency, there's another kind of dependency here of somebody's largesse. And that creates a texture of a relationship between people that is--you want people to look each other in the eye. You don't want them to grovel, to have to doff their hat. So, I worry about that kind of relationship. In some sense, the impersonality of government takes that away. And especially if you think it's an entitlement, you are not dependent on somebody's largesse, we as a society have decided that all of our members are going to get certain benefits.
There is more to this discussion, and the whole podcast is worth listening to. But I was struck by the argument that accepting charity creates a relationship of dependency in a way that accessing an entitlement does not. Particularly because I think one of the most pernicious effects of a welfare state is the way bureaucrats acquire huge power - exercised to protect the taxpayers from fraudsters, of course - to intervene in the lives of their clients. If that money is yours by right, and no kowtowing to a damn sheet-sniffing pencil-pusher is required, isn't that healthier relationship between citizen and state than becoming a ward of some self-perpetuating guild of social workers?
But I don't quite believe it, so don't sign me up for the Community Organization courses quite yet.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
The feeling of indebtedness from receiving charity is precisely the best thing about direct charity, I believe. When you are given something that you need from some one who owes you nothing, I like to think that it makes you grateful and instills in you a sense of responsibility. You owe that person. If it is true charity of course they won't ask for anything in return or expect anything, but nevertheless you must feel a sense of obligation to at least pay them back or pay it foreword.
Thus charity can and should make all people more charitable as well as help those in need over come difficulties. It creates a network of responsibilities and duties between people.
A government entitlement strives to remove any of the responsibilities associated with receiving charity, to create a guilt and duty free society. Yet, guilt and duty is what keeps people honest and attentive. Money without responsibility leads to laziness and self indulgence. It leads to ingratitude and also to conflict.
We have charity( government and private) to help raise the living standards and prospects of all our citizens and to help foster greater equality and community.
(to be Continued)
Mar '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Valiuth: I agree with everything you wrote, right down to the last paragraph. Government charity is a contradiction in terms, for precisely the reasons you state further up. Government programs may have been implemented with the best of intentions for raising living standards, but as is now obvious, they do nothing but foster dependence. The only way you can obtain greater equality in society is by lowering the standard of living for those at the top, in effect creating shared misery. There always has been and always will be disparities in the human condition, which is not government's role to remedy.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
If people are raised or taught to expect things they will become spoiled. Just like over indulged children. When what they want and maybe even need can not be provided to them they will react poorly, also like children. The big difference is that adults don't hold their breath or yell and roll on the floor. They tend to do more violent things like riot and burn cars.
What we should want is for people to acknowledge and be grateful for the help they receive. I think such an attitude would also make people more inclined to continue to give and support charity (public or private). Everyone feels good when they can help some one, and we feel even better when we are thanked and acknowledged for it.
What always infuriates me about the left is that they wish to take by force and through conflict what they could get much more easily through fraternity and community. Instead of creating sub groups of oppressed and disadvantaged that need to get what is theirs from the advantaged and oppressive, if they thought to make every one into one group and acknowledge that, they could get much of what they want.
Mar '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Gratitude and a sense of obligation, and even guilt, for having been in a position of accepting charity is one of the moral pillars of our culture. It's why we do no favors to those who accept "entitlements", the very term implies that there's no need to accept responsibility for one's own reduced circumstances. Very few in life are dealt a winning hand, but we all have a responsibility to play the hand we're dealt to the best of our abilities without society kibbitzing over our shoulder.
"When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices." Frederic Bastiat
Edited on Aug 11, 2011 at 12:13pmMay '10
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
I agree with the rest of you guys. To summarize: that unpleasant feeling that Satz describes pejoratively as "demeaning" is a feature, not a bug.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Illiniguy: (I'm an Illini too by the way, class of 2007) Thanks for agreeing with me and also disagreeing. My view is that government tries to provide charity, but without calling it that or making people realize it's charity. What I'm saying is that if the government made it clear that it was providing charity, and tried to create the same sentiment that good charity creates it would be more successful. As citizens we give our government money to maintain order and perform worthwhile activities. I believe and I think many people do too that charity is a worth while activity, thus the government is more then welcome to engage in it (this does not mean I support unlimited government activity). It just needs to be aware of its limitations. It can't actually remove relative differences and it can not devote unlimited resources to any one charitable activity.
The big problem is that Government Charity is viewed as a means to an unrealistic end of equalizing wealth between all citizens. When it should be viewed as a means of improving the lives of the poor over their previous state, not making everyone equally rich.
Mar '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Charity stems from a feeling of obligation on the part of the giver of that charity. You should not assume that government's motivation as being one of obligation. I apologize for quoting Bastiat twice in one thread, but he said it well:
"It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds."
You hear it said now that Jesus would support federal welfare programs. However, Jesus also told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's. I don't think he meant for us to abrogate our personal responsibility to our fellow man by handing it over to a bunch of bureaucrats. Our charitable obligation to our fellow man is a measure of that which we must render to God.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Jesus lived in a world where kings owned nations and people. We are a Republic the government is or should be an extension of ourselves. It engages in the activities we as a society agree it should engage in, and we can change via our democratic process both the legislators and the bureaucrats. The charity that government is involved in is generally popular and people I think would vote to support it. It should be run better, and must be checked by rational fiscal restraint.
I think it is possible to rearrange the kind of help and the manner in which the government aids people. I doubt we can have it not engage in any such help, since most people would not want that.
People will always have to help each other and perform private charity, which I think is quite good. But, public charity also represents charity with nearly universal consensus as to its good. Providing food, housing, and medical help to people is unquestionably good. It can be done both privately and publicly, and also responsibly. To create clear improvements in peoples lives without bankrupting the nation or creating a social quagmire.
Oct '10
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
I like this. Because charity is an undeserved gift, an obligation is created - not an obligation to the giver (or it wouldn't be a gift), but to the virtues that gave rise to the gift in the first place.
But is charity via Government possible? Illiniguy makes a persuasive argument, but I'm not there yet. After all, it is not unreasonable to think social contract theories allow for compulsory military service in times of dire need; why not compulsory charity? (But then, where do we stop?)
Mar '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
What's different between kings owning nations and people and a world in which people are bound by cruel dependency upon a government that holds them in its thrall? DeToqueville warned against losing our liberty to a soft despotism, and we've reached that point. The next step is a hard despotism, which turns citizens into cattle. That's what you see running amok in London today. My life is the only thing that I truly own, and I'm damned if I'll hand it over in exchange for the blandishments of a politician.
I wish I shared your optimism, but nothing exceeds like excess. Politicians live by the rule that if a little bit is good, a lot is so much better. It's the camel's nose under the tent flap. Add to that certain non-discrimination provisions and a whining constituency, and you have what we have today. Whenever you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.
Mar '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
In order to interpret the Constitution as creating a social contract obligating us to provide "charity", you must subscribe to the notion that the Constitution is a "living" document. It's not; it's a document prescribing limits on the powers of the Federal government, limits which have been totally blown through by legislation and court opinions. James Madison himself said that no matter how compelling the need of private persons, he could not find in the Constitution the authority to use public funds to assuage that need. One of the best books I ever read was "The Twilight of Individual Liberty" by Hamilton Vreeland. It documents the evolution of thought on the Commerce Clause, which is the primary means by which the Federal government has intruded into our lives. I highly commend it to your attention.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
I think we should not view the government as separate from the citizenry. The government is a vehicle for collective action that we citizens need to and want to perform. It is our duty as citizens to maintain order and law, and I think also to be charitable to one another (it is a moral duty instilled by our religions, and cultural morality). I like to think it is possible to use the government to perform charity, in the same way we use it to promote law and justice. We just need to make things properly contextualized.
That charity is not something the government must do, but something that is done because we are a rich an generous nation, and thus the less fortunate citizens should feel appreciative of the fact that they are members of such a nation. As such they must repay their debt to the rest of society in some constructive way.
It's easy to create a break between citizens and the government. But, we must work against that by remembering that the citizens are the government. For that we need more civics, and a more active and engaged citizenry.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Oh I agree Illiniguy that there is a lot of dysfunctionality in the way our current system runs. I feel though the majority of that dysfunction doesn't come from the government handing people money, in one form or another. It comes from the attitudes and culture being created around those government actions. Maybe the two are inseparable, and government charity will always lead to government dependence, though one can make that argument about all charity. One man becomes dependent on another, but the truth is that no one is truly self reliant, not any more. Our society is too large and complicated and specialized for that.
Our affluence and prosperity came from becoming more interdependent on one another. The government has grown and become more intrusive because so has our society, and government is the means by which we regulate ourselves to prevent anarchy and criminality. I'm not saying all that our government is doing is good, or that it cannot do things better, I'm just saying we can't have the government of Madison because we don't have the Nation that Madison governed.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
"should be"! The Founding Fathers knew that all governments, even representative republics, tend to become a power entity of and for itself. That's why they implemented a system of checks and balances for limited government. We've gradually let that erode until now we're out of money. Dr. Paul A. Rahe's book "Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift" explains it all.
Mar '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
You cannot use the government to support or provide charity. Providing charity is an entirely different thing than providing for common security of both lives and property, which is a proper function of government. The Constitution places limits on the powers of the Federal government (which are observed now more in the breach than the adherance).
Yes, we are a rich and generous nation, but our generosity comes from a willingness to share the wealth which we create with our own efforts. If you transfer your responsibility for charity over to the government, you lose the ability to choose those who would be the objects of your bounty. How compassionate is it to provide for people who are capable of providing for themselves? Where's the compassion for those who create the wealth? We've now seemed to have travelled full circle, and are back at the idea of imposing a measure of responsibility upon those who receive charity, even if it's limited to the obligation of showing gratitude.
Mar '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Charlie in Kobe, Japan
"should be"! The Founding Fathers knew that all governments, even representative republics, tend to become a power entity of and for itself. That's why they implemented a system of checks and balances for limited government. We've gradually let that erode until now we're out of money. Dr. Paul A. Rahe's book "Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift" explains it all. · Aug 11 at 2:06pm
Peter Robinson interviewed Paul Rahe several years ago about the book. You can find the interview on National Review's Uncommon Knowledge archive. It's excellent.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Ayn Rand: The only virtuous relation between people is that of traders.
Exceptions that she didn't have the perspective to see: parent and child, romantic lovers.
All others: pay cash!
Mar '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Our affluence and prosperity is a direct result of liberty, not from our interdependence. We do live in the same nation Madison governed, because human nature does not change; it's no coincidence that we've gone into decline at the same time the government became more involved in our lives.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
Unified Theory of the World: the more liberty, the more prosperity, but wider the gap between top and bottom. All attempts to narrow the gap (i.e. promote fairness, social justice, provide welfare) lower the mean of prosperity for everyone. The world is always in the condition that there is a majority who has less than a minority, and by the process called "ressentiment" [French] the majority tries to take away from the minority.
Application of the Theory to US politics: Republicans are people who don't mind the gap. Democrats simply pander to the majority. Politics is a choice between absolute good and fairness.
Apr '11
Re: Are Entitlements Virtuous?
from Wikipedia:
Ressentiment (pronounced /rəsɑ̃tiˈmɑ̃/), in philosophy and psychology, is a particular form of resentment or hostility. It is theFrench word for "resentment" (fr. Latin intensive prefix 're', and 'sentir' "to feel"). Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, ormorality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.
Ressentiment is not to be considered interchangeable with the normal English word "resentment", or even the French "ressentiment". While the normal words both speak to a feeling of frustration directed at a perceived source, neither speaks to the special relationship between a sense of inferiority and the creation of morality.