7 comments

• 

  C

  2 years ago

  From the murky depths of inside a political science department, the arcane jargon that we have agreed upon is that the welfare state is "individuating."
  
  In some ways the welfare state simply replaces the bonds between parent and child with ones between individual and state. But other times the new relationship is more complex; the power dynamics are changed.
  
  Now Mom and Dad can live of Social Security and Medicare while I travel around the world. Sure.
  
  But it's also the case that I can escape from home, hit the streets, develop a drug habit, steal, etc. etc. and end up "in the system."
  
  Or perhaps I'll go off to college and then get a grant to make documentary films overseas. The state can fund my dreams! No more relying on the provincial and stultifying bonds of family, community, etc., etc.
  
  In addition to mutating our obligations and opportunities, the Welfare state just straight up changes the pay-outs and incentive structure of all of our lives.
  
  That's why Abraam DeSwaan says that the implementation of the Welfare State is as big a reform as the introduction of Representative Democracy.
  reply
• 

  stuart

  2 years ago

  "It would seem that genuinely productive, creative people would need them least."
  
  This is similar to Tyler's take on tenure. He claims it's great for the stars, who do most of the work. But stars are the ones who would keep their jobs anyway.
  reply
• 

  Eric Crampton

  2 years ago

  I'd always thought the Randian dream re family was to denounce and abandon parasites, not to fob them off onto an alternative host.
  reply
• 

  Lester Hunt

  2 years ago

  Will - Excellent post! Hard to believe that of the two of you Tyler is the one who is supposed to be the economist. This is proof that philosophy is not such a bad thing to study, after all!
  reply
• 

  Richard Pointer

  2 years ago

  Better post Will. Most of the time you are too wordy. I agree with Lester. Tyler, of late, has been a ninny.
  reply
• 

  Enoch Roote

  2 years ago

  Here's a way to understand it:
  
  If the thing we all have in common is that we pay for each others' health care, then all our health care is done. We don't have to worry about it. We sort-of already do this, by the way, with insurance, but because the insurance is profit-motivated, it doesn't accept as much risk and is exclusionary.
  
  So we already have a collectivist health care system mapped into capitalism, with some middle-men ending up really rich, at the expense of those whose conditions are risky to insure.
  
  If my parents can't afford insurance, I end up being tied to them in a way that demands a sacrifice of my creativity. And the only reason this occurs is because some middle-men get to set the terms of the insurance policy, so that they can make money.
  
  Taking the profit motive out, we end up with insurance for whoever needs it. Suddenly, my parents aren't uninsurable any more, and I am free to support them to whatever degree I choose, allowing me to maximize my individual economic liberty.
  
  The middle men don't like this fact, and they'd really like to keep their stranglehold on my creativity. But should we let them?
  reply
• 

  Consumatopia

  2 years ago

  The point is that protection from risk enables experimentation. Failure is how we learn to do better--that's especially true for the creative and productive.
  reply