“It is not charity, but a right … that I am pleading for. The present state of civilization is as odious as it is unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be. It is necessary that a revolution should be made in it. The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together.”
The author of this quote may come as a surprise; he is none other than Thomas Paine. Paine was not a libertarian, as can clearly be seen in his work “Agrarian Justice.”
I support the welfare state. Any libertarians must think of me as a filthy communist, marching down the street, waving a red flag and singing “The Internationale.” I assure you, my position is not nearly so radical. From a recognition of capitalism’s deficiencies vis-a-vis income inequality arise two possible solutions: that of the bleeding hearts and that of the rational egoists.
Karl Marx can be seen as a champion of the bleeding hearts. His understanding of capitalism is remarkable, but his solutions are, frankly, lunatic. He championed the abolition of private property and the creation of a dictatorship of the working class. “Workers of the world, unite,” Marx said. “You have nothing to lose but your chains!” There are two problems with Marxism: one empirical and one normative.
Empirically, it is clear that no such revolutions have occurred. There have been a few nominally-communist revolutions, but these fell far short of Marx’s ideals. Every communist revolution has merely been a revolution of the middle class overthrowing the ruling class. In Russia, for instance, a group of middle class revolutionaries enlisted the help of the workers to overthrow the Czarist government. Once successful, these revolutionaries instituted a totalitarian regime, which was no less oppressive than the Czar himself. As George Orwell wrote, “From the point of view of the Low (workers), no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.”
Normatively, communism is wholly unfair. Why should the idle and the industrious be equally compensated? In this system there is no incentive for the skilled to contribute to society. As Ayn Rand said, “Man is not a sacrificial animal.” An ethical system built on sacrifice for pity’s sake is inhuman. Man has a fundamental right to the product of his labor, and all work must be justly compensated. As Benjamin Franklin said, “God helps those who help themselves.” The world belongs to the strong and the hardworking. Their contributions are inestimable.
This last sentiment is one shared by libertarians, and they may wonder why I support government actions that limit these captains of industry. The answer lies in the rational egoist defense of the welfare state.
Libertarians argue against welfare by equating it with forced charity. They feel, to quote William Graham Sumner, that welfare fits the formula: “A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. [And that] the radical vice of all these schemes… is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests … are entirely overlooked.” Thus they call C the “Forgotten Man.” There are two fallacies with this logic.
Firstly, who are A and B? I take them to represent the government, but in America A and B are elected, at least partially, by C. Therefore, C does have power to stop this formula.
Secondly, and more importantly, C is receiving a lot in return for this arrangement. When looking at D, C must remember the proverbial saying, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” C could easily lose their job, take ill or suffer an accident. Charity is not sufficient; there must be social programs in place to help the deserving poor; this is not pity, but justice.
Additionally, public money goes to the creation and maintenance of public works and public education, which helps everyone by facilitating market exchange and producing an educated populous.
George Watson summarized this position quite succinctly: “State welfare … [is] an essential prop to a free economy … Welfare promotes initiative, initiative promotes growth.” Of course there is waste. Some people live off welfare with no intention of working, and these people should be removed. I do not support handouts; people should instead be put to work, or else trained to find employment.
However, many people on welfare are working full time. A person who earns minimum wage is still below the poverty line, which is an injustice that must be remedied. People will not abide by oppression forever. If the deserving poor continue to be oppressed, there will be revolution. People will not want to work unless they are guaranteed some level of income security in a system governed by forces beyond their control.
It is not about charity or pity; rather, it is about rights and self-interest. As John Stuart Mill wrote, “The laissez-faire doctrine, stated without large qualifications, is both unpractical and unscientific; but it does not follow that those who assert it are not, nineteen times out of twenty, practically nearer the truth than those who deny it.”
Ayn Rand rightly called capitalism the unknown ideal, as it has never truly existed. Even today, the economy is rigged to favor big business. Libertarians want to help the common man by ending corporate welfare. However, “one ought not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
Society is not made; it evolves. Nature favors moderation, and one of the greatest legacies of Anglo-American liberalism is the creation of political systems built on compromise. Laissez-faire and socialism are both unworkable extremes; what is needed is moderate capitalism that ensures reward for hard work and ability.
