Subsidising Poor Choices

[Barney]

As soon as we begin to think about helping the poor there arises a new problem. The very thing capitalism set out to do, place responsibility for your values and behavior on you, begins to be undermined. In the story about the markers, at the end, the brother was given a new set of markers. This is a bit unjust because the brother actually got TWO sets of markers while the sister only got one. On top of that, it was his own poor behavior that required the second set of markers in the first place. We are likely willing to forgive this offense based on the fact that he realized his error and corrected his ways. But what if we simply forgave his poor behavior and issued new markers every time he needed them? It might feel good, in that the need for markers is being met, but by doing this we are removing the incentive for the behavior to change. It is only in the absence of the possibility of getting new markers and the recognition that it was his own actions that led him to his situation that the brother recognises his need to change. This highlights the need for the community to administer aid to the poor. It must be done on a case by case basis where the situational details can be evaluated. The forgiveness is necessary but not sufficient. Blind forgiveness removes accountability.

What if there is no way forward? What if we are talking about a single mother of three who just moved to town, knows nobody in the community, has no education, can only find a job as a cashier and cannot make ends meet? Surely we should set up a government-run program that allocates some resources for people in these situations. We cannot reasonably expect her to pull herself up ‘by her bootstraps’. There is certainly a strong argument for this based on compassion. We do not want to see people suffering but what does this actually do? It is no longer economically catastrophic to get yourself into such a situation. The long string of poor choices on the woman’s part will be paid for by unknown people who are making better decisions. We will not issue dire warnings to our children pointing out those beggars on the street. The poor behavior is not receiving its just reward. She is living a lie so to speak. Without the truth of the real situation being lived, more people will follow the same path.

There is value in waiting for marriage before having children (or sex for that matter). There is value in staying married. There is value in staying in touch with and building up your community (running off to a new place with your three kids is rather foolish). There is value in pursuing an education or employable skill. There is value in planning for the future carefully. By subsidizing the woman’s poor behavior we are simultaneously undermining all these other values. They are not just moral values, they are practical as well. Deviating from them has real and very serious consequences. Not only for the woman but for her children and the community around her as well. If we stick with capitalism, you will have not only the liberty to destroy your life, but the destroyed life too. With any redistributive governmental approaches to addressing these kinds of problems out of compassion, we risk erosion of foundational guiding principles by removing the consequences of actions.

What About Wealth Disparity?

I hear this term thrown around frequently and I find it odious. It is not clear what is objectionable. I feel like it is just a way to get around saying “I am envious of rich people”. I see nothing immoral about people having different amounts of wealth. We could talk about how they got their wealth if it was done underhandedly. We could talk about moral failings of rich people. Fine. But that there is a disparity between people is not immoral.

This also depends on context. Who is being compared. And the speaker never suggests that they are the wealthy, it’s always someone else. As if there is a moral high ground by being in the lower category. Maybe it is just fashionable to talk about and signals how virtuous you are that you are aware of the concept?

Maybe this is a way to get around that even the poor people in the west are rich by world standards, so, because the disparity in the west can be shown to be larger we can complain about it? This sounds like a better explanation.

I've a lot to say about this but so far I've only said one thing:

the speaker never suggests that they are the wealthy, it’s always someone else.

That I'm pretty sure is not true. Warren Buffet talks about it, for one

Thank you for making my point. You immediately think of Warren Buffet, not yourself. See here. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... e-U-S.html

You can very easily put yourself in that category even if you are quite poor. All you have to do is start comparing across time, say, 100 years ago. We always conceive of "the wealthy" as someone else. Buy why? Why not the other way around? Why do we not go around pointing out how wealthy we are?

[Barney]

I chose Warren Buffet because he is wealthy by any human comparison, and because he spoke out against "coddling the super-rich" and insisted that taxation of the 1% should go up.

I do actually think that most Westerners are rich and ought to think of themselves as such. In my prayers, almost every day, certainly every week, I recognise that I and my family are among the richest and most privileged people in the world. Then I ask the Lord to show me how I can use my wealth to benefit those who are less well-off.

I'm also aware that my wealth and privilege is mostly not a result of my own individual effort or intelligence. I was given a special advantage over other people in many ways. Much of that comes from the fact that I grew up in a Western nation, with comparatively wealthy parents, relatives, friends, etc. I have a security that most people in the developing world would dream of. Even if I massively screw up and go bankrupt, there are people who would bail me out. I would not end up on the streets.

[Barney]

By the way, that article you linked to - I earn less than that.

[Barney]

There is value in waiting for marriage before having children (or sex for that matter). There is value in staying married.

This assumes that the example you gave is of a woman who chose to leave a husband, or not to get married. What if she married someone who, to the best of her knowledge, was a good guy - and yet he abandoned her?

There is value in pursuing an education or employable skill. There is value in planning for the future carefully.

True, of course. Are we to build a society in which there are no second chances for those who made a mistake early in life, and wish to do the sensible thing from now on? Is it now too late?

[Barney]

But what if we simply forgave his poor behavior and issued new markers every time he needed them? It might feel good, in that the need for markers is being met, but by doing this we are removing the incentive for the behavior to change. It is only in the absence of the possibility of getting new markers and the recognition that it was his own actions that led him to his situation that the brother recognises his need to change. This highlights the need for the community to administer aid to the poor. It must be done on a case by case basis where the situational details can be evaluated. The forgiveness is necessary but not sufficient. Blind forgiveness removes accountability.

I agree with all of this. Forgiveness is indeed necessary but not sufficient. Here, again, we meet different models of law and grace in Christianity. For certain strands of Protestantism, grace simply means you are forgiven infinitely no matter what you do. I think this strand has had an unfortunate effect on some aspects of American culture - especially because the pendulum swings to the other end, and people like Ayn Rand, tired of that kind of unconditional grace, go to the opposite extreme of removing grace altogether.

But according to the Catholic tradition, grace is given for a purpose, and the purpose is that you change your life. If you don't change your life, you're not using the free gift of grace you were given. If you don't use it, it will be taken away from you. The intended effect of grace is that it makes the recipient worthy to receive it, even though grace is given while the recipient was unworthy.

[Barney]

We do not want to see people suffering but what does this actually do? It is no longer economically catastrophic to get yourself into such a situation. The long string of poor choices on the woman’s part will be paid for by unknown people who are making better decisions. We will not issue dire warnings to our children pointing out those beggars on the street.

I'm not sure this is true. Even with government help, nobody wants to be in that situation. It is still a worse situation than the one of people who are making better decisions. Government aid is not supposed to cushion people's bad choices so much that it makes no difference at all what choices they make. It is simply supposed to give people a second chance. It recognises that they may have learned a thing or two since they made that bad choice, and with the right opportunity, will do it better next time. The government steps in to give them a "next time."

[Barney]

What About Wealth Disparity?

I hear this term thrown around frequently and I find it odious. It is not clear what is objectionable. I feel like it is just a way to get around saying “I am envious of rich people”. I see nothing immoral about people having different amounts of wealth.

I agree with this in the main. A lot of people's hatred of the rich is really only jealousy. If they became rich themselves their complaints would cease rapidly. So we need to clarify what we mean by wealth disparity. I think it is a more worthwhile term when it means: undeserved disparity. It means that some people are poor, not out of their own choices, but because of where they were born or what parents they were born to. It means, further, that they are kept poor by some kind of exploitation.

What is exploitation? That would be a whole other discussion.

[Ondrej]

But according to the Catholic tradition, grace is given for a purpose, and the purpose is that you change your life. If you don't change your life, you're not using the free gift of grace you were given. If you don't use it, it will be taken away from you. The intended effect of grace is that it makes the recipient worthy to receive it, even though grace is given while the recipient was unworthy.

I think this is what Rand is getting at here

If you choose to help a man who suffers, do it only on the ground of his virtues, of his fight to recover, of his rational record, or of the fact that he suffers unjustly; then your action is still a trade, and his virtue is the payment for your help. But to help a man who has no virtues, to help him on the ground of his suffering as such, to accept his faults, his need, as a claim —is to accept the mortgage of a zero on your values. A man who has no virtues is a hater of existence who acts on the premise of death; to help him is to sanction his evil and to support his career of destruction. Be it only a penny you will not miss or a kindly smile he has not earned, a tribute to a zero is treason to life and to all those who struggle to maintain it.

[Ondrej]

I'm not sure this is true. Even with government help, nobody wants to be in that situation. It is still a worse situation than the one of people who are making better decisions. Government aid is not supposed to cushion people's bad choices so much that it makes no difference at all what choices they make. It is simply supposed to give people a second chance. It recognises that they may have learned a thing or two since they made that bad choice, and with the right opportunity, will do it better next time. The government steps in to give them a "next time."

If the government made money instead of taking it from others I would have no problem with them giving freely. It is much less attractive to give generously of someone else's money and pretend any kind of virtue. It has the look of compassion but not any of the cost of the action being attached to the actor. The sacrifice is made by a slave of the system who gives at gunpoint, is at the same time reviled for making the money, and this is used as justification for robbing him. The whole machinery of this operation is wrong.

I agree that nobody wants to be in a bad situation. But they also do not want the government to force them to make good decisions either (I can only hope everyone still agrees with this). We do not want to be, fat, out of shape, and eat unhealthy. But we let ourselves get there anyway. Perhaps we don't want it but we also don't want to pay the price for maintaining ourselves.

The body positivity movement tries to address this situation by, instead of proper diet and exercise and pushing yourself to do better, redefining what is acceptable. The same sort of idea is behind participation trophies. We don't want anyone to feel bad for loosing. They do not realize that loosing is what makes winning rewarding. Not everyone gets to win, that's what makes it worth it. Not everyone is in peak physical condition, that's what makes it so attractive. There is a burning desire, masked by rhetoric of compassion, to absolve one's self of responsibility for one's actions.

If we look at the trends in single motherhood one would get the impression that it is highly desirable. We keep doing it more and more. I think everyone basically agrees this is not a good arrangement. Is it possible that the bad actors are not getting their just reward? That someone else has been paying the cost for such behavior? I do realize it is a bit more complicated than that but I think you see my point.

[Ondrej]

So we need to clarify what we mean by wealth disparity. I think it is a more worthwhile term when it means: undeserved disparity. It means that some people are poor, not out of their own choices, but because of where they were born or what parents they were born to. It means, further, that they are kept poor by some kind of exploitation.

I think it is true that some people are poor not of their own choice. I think it is also true that some people are exploited although, as you say, this is another conversation.

What do you tell these people? It's not your fault? Which is to say, there's nothing you can do? You've been exploited? No, this is not helpful! This drives them further into despair. There's nothing they can do and they are being taken advantage of. What needs to be said is, look here are the things you have control of, in other words, what you are doing wrong. If they are in a bad situation and they are in control of some key driving forces behind their situation, one can only hope they are doing SOMETHING wrong. Then you give them some hope, some control over their future. If they are not walking around thinking everyone is trying to take advantage of them perhaps the world will open up to them.