Thursday, May 28, 2009

Through no fault of his own?? I doubt it.

The welfare state is usually justified by some sob sister pointing to a truly indigent person who was a victim of circumstance. It is accompanied with the claim that we must help people "who through no fault of their own" are in dire needs. But politicized charity doesn't that way. There is a Gresham's law of welfare.

In Gresham's law, when you have legal tender laws, bad money chases good money out of circulation. In a Gresham's law of welfare, when you have political control of welfare then bad welfare cases tend to drive out good ones. What I mean is that resources which get set aside for the "truly needed" ends up going to people who are the "truly irresponsible." Worse yet, over time the irresponsible consume greater percentages of the welfare budget. The net result is that the "truly needed" that we all wanted to help end up getting less help than they otherwise would have because the irresponsible get the lion's share of the budget.

As the numbers of irresponsible parasites increase they become an important voting block who can be purchased by politicians offering them more goodies. Question the antics of these politicians and they will point their boney fingers at you and screech: "You heartless, greedy libertarian. You want people who are in need, through no fault of their own, to starve. Don't you?"

As hardcore a libertarian as I consider myself I'd be damn pleased if we reached the stage where the recipients of welfare are merely those in need through no fault of their own. Instead, I find that we spend a huge amount of tax resources cleaning up the mess of irresponsible individuals like Desmond Hatchett and the women, who are either really stupid or really slutty, who conceive children with him. Note that at least one of the mothers in this story is said to have two children by Hatchett. Really now, if she didn't learn the first time around then why is the state helping her out? Let us assume that the first such child was a woman making an innocent error. But when it becomes a habit exactly why should other families, who are struggling, and yet responsible, be forced to finance this woman's irresponsibility?