The Welfare State

The indebtedness of a nation is an impoverishment if its people, not a manifestation of justice.

“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” Frederic Bastiat, 19th C French economist.

Every new law to create yet another entitlement is the result of some fabricated right at the expense of another’s rights. Rights are not a zero sum game, some transactional exercise, but are those things that define what it means to own oneself.

What is taking all of what someone produces with their own labor called? The answer is slavery. What do you call taking a portion of what someone produces with their own labor? Would that be proportional slavery? If you say no, you have a paradox; at what point is the proportion taken not slavery? Whether legalized by a dictator’s decree or a democratic mandate, taking reduces people to slavery, making them chattel of the state.

While no one overtly proposes slavery as a means to create welfare, there are those that propose taking the fruits of another’s labor in order to provide for the “common good”, an ambiguous term that reduces people to a collective entity that must be protected from, well themselves. This patronizing concept is another example of power lust, a twin to the Warfare State and just as insidious.

It does not matter what altruistic goal is proposed, the eventual outcome has always proven the same as over time the Welfare State will evolve into a dystopia we know as totalitarianism; this is the empirical lesson of history, and cloaking it in terms of invented rights will not prevent the conclusion. Taking under such disingenuous systems like Democratic Socialism is justified under the pretense that you have a say in the matter, which is a delusion and another case of democracy not being a safeguard for liberty.

Consider the popular platitude called “social justice” as a justification for the Welfare State. My concept of justice is that I keep what I earn, and you do the same; if that is not so, then how much of what I earn is yours, and why is that called justice? If taking the fruits of one’s labor without their consent is not theft, then it would follow that all thieves have to do is form a government to legalize it….wait a minute….OK, I get it. 

Often the misconception of such rights evolves from the misunderstanding of opportunity; it is true for example that those born into a rich family have an advantage in opportunities, but that does not represent an injustice any more than a speedier runner in a track meet.  No one who is blessed with an accident of birth in wealth or speed should ever be punished for their good fortune as such is luck in life. Likewise those that have had success in pursuing an opportunity are no less entitled to their rights than those that have failed; opportunity does not guarantee success, only risk.

These are seemingly axiomatic realities, yet they are dismissed by advocates for the Welfare State because they represent obstacles for the “common good”. Should you remind them that liberty includes the right to the pursuit of happiness, they will denounce you as selfish as that’s just another example of capitalist oppression. Should you counter with the argument that it’s the entrepreneur who takes the risk, creates the jobs, bears the costs of failure and if successful creates the wealth that grows the economy, you will be told that you are an outdated reactionary as that economic system is no longer functional because in government we have the means to grow the economy without the risk of failure. Should you point out to them that this has never worked, be prepared to be shouted down as an enemy of progress and equality. What caused this Bizzaro World of a new American culture?

The apparent enemy of this twisted phenomenon is liberty because it’s only a guarantee of equality before the law; in all other things liberty provides for each individual the right to exercise their free will. In truth that can result in a chaotic situation as there is no guarantee that people will choose what we may objectively judge to be the right choice for them, only that they are the only ones who have the right to choose what they judge to be in their own interests.

The alternative is to not allow them liberty and make their choices for them; the fact that this is the essence of slavery is lost in the pursuit of this equality in all things, creating rights for every aspect of life. To do this requires the force of law, and the enemies of liberty are united in that agenda; doing so ignores the fact that if force is required to promote your ideal, then there is an inherent and fatal flaw with that ideal as compulsion is not compassion, it’s authoritarianism.

It has been argued that the constitution mandates welfare based on its stated purpose. The reference made is actually in the preamble, which the Supreme Court correctly made clear is not an independent source of rights, and further that “general welfare” means the good of all citizens, and not an open-ended mandate for Congress, and that the only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and that government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom.

So how then to fund the government for these protections of freedom without a taking of the fruits of one’s labor? As the Constitution actually forbade direct income taxes (except during crises such as the Civil War, but then suspended) prior to the 16th Amendment, the US utilized tariffs, sales taxes, customs duties, excise taxes, land sales, and fees with which it managed to do so. Except in times of war, the US balanced its budget up to 1901, but ran in the red nearly every year since.  The indebtedness of a nation is an impoverishment if its people, not a manifestation of justice.

Author: jvi7350

Politically I am an independent. While I tend to avoid labels, I consider myself a Libertarian. I find our politics to have deteriorated to a current state of ranting tribialism, and a growing disregard for individual rights; based on the axiom that silence is consent, I choose instead to speak out and therefore launched this blog.

6 thoughts on “The Welfare State”

  1. In your perfect world how would roads, police departments, fire departments, courts, district attorneys offices, be financed along with ancillary operations and facility for their operations by States and local governments?

    And how would this affect the person who lives paycheck to paycheck, i.e. A person who has no excess income or a person who due to a disability is unable to work or due to old age is to feeble to work?

    Louis

    > >

    Like

    1. What perfect world are you referring to? In the post it makes clear that liberty provides free will to choose whatever one judges to be in their own interests, which may result in a chaotic situation, but a hell of a lot better than slavery. You seem to be repetitive regarding the question about funding those security/safety functions. They are provided by state/local governments through assessment of properties they serve, a valid function of government. As to the income issue, already addressed, see prior posts such as “Easy Money and the Wealth Gap”, “Inflation Myths”, and “Bubble Economy”. Despite government interventionism, the poverty rate in the US was halved since WWII, and since the Enlightenment, the average per capita income has grown almost 800%. Amazing that liberty is blamed for what governments do, like shutting down an economy, squandering wealth with stimulus and monetary inflation, etc. There have been crises both individual and national and there are likely to be more, but principles such as liberty apply for all and at all times. The indebtedness of a nation is an impoverishment of its people, not a manifestation of justice.

      Like

  2. You refer to the “enlightenment.” The only reference to that is this, which I suspect you do not mean, so please let me know when you are referring to: “a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton, and its prominent exponents include Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith.”

    Like

    1. In the post referenced I did not make reference to the Enlightenment. Regarding your reference, which may not be “…the only reference…” that there is about the Enlightenment, but as a historical time frame and geopolitical influence it’s a generalization that is acceptable, but again the term is not contained in the post you are commenting on.

      Like

  3. You say the poverty rate in America is half what it was after WWII. We now have 331 million people living in America today. At the end of the war in 1945 the population was 140 million. If the poverty rate today is 10%, then 33 million Americans are living in poverty. And doubling the 10% gives us 20% and 28 million people living in poverty in 1945. So now we have 5 million more people living in poverty. So to say that the poverty rate has been cut in half, is somewhat misleading if the number living in poverty has increased by 18% .

    Like

    1. In the post referenced, I did not make reference to or quote statistics about poverty rates, so I can’t see how there was anything stated about that which could be “…somewhat misleading…”

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: