<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Welfare as freedom? Fascinating reframe. Doesn't quite work with me,
but it is very sophisticated. Much you say is spot on, so I will just
comment on that reframe. <br>
<br>
The other frame I can borrow from the black writer, Star Parker, a
former welfare mother who wrote "Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big
Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It" <br>
See: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/archive.shtml">http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/archive.shtml</a><br>
<br>
My own view is that unearned income, whether by welfare or by trust
fund, corrupts the recipient and degrades society. Welfare addicts
(verb, not noun) but keeps people at a disgracefully low level,
constantly emotionally abused by the inevitable bureaucracy endemic to
all welfare states. I worked in the public mental health system, saw it
myself in my clients. <br>
<br>
So the welfare state harms those it purports to help. It is a principle
reason why societies lower in welfare state policies have a higher
standard of living and more people employed. Socialism and
welfare-statism degrade society and impoverish workers.<br>
See: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html</a><br>
Especially the projections from the 1970s that showed that Britain,
before Maggie Thatcher, would have been below Albania in per-capita
income by 2000. The Iron Maggie saved the UK (provocative, but there is
some justification). <br>
<br>
C.f.: Walter Williams' analysis (Chairman, Dept of Economics, George
Mason University) or Thomas Sowell. Both Ph.D. economists who happen to
be black and make a rather convincing argument that the welfare state
has greatly harmed the black community.<br>
<br>
Example: Social security takes the most from black and latino males,
and gives the most to well-to-do or wealthy white females. It is a
reverse income redistribution scheme, gone horribly wrong. Social
justice? Reform social security!<br>
See: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/">http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/</a><br>
Listen to Wednesday, Nov. 24 program. I like Surowiecki, but he is
completely out to lunch on this issue. <br>
<br>
Your contributions are thought provoking and challenging. Even when I
disagree, I think about it. Thanks.<br>
Lynn<br>
<br>
Michael Christopher wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20041124201057.73834.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Welfare has been pared back and more people are
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->working. Social security will run out of money, and
the ownership notion may be a way to salvage it.<<
--The problem may be psychological. It is not easy for
anyone to give up autonomy and freedom to depend on
another with absolute trust. For males especially, it
is perceived as humiliation and loss of status.
Welfare enables people to have freedom, or relative
freedom (the freedom to persue an education, read or
otherwise improve themselves, or to be "naughty"... we
often talk as if they're all in the "naughty"
category), and asking people who are used to freedom
to depend on some privatized community help projects
may not work well. We can assume it WILL work, but it
may not, and it's a bit irresponsible to change things
drastically in a short period of time without knowing
how it will affect the ecological balance of the
culture.
Psychologically, it is assumed that whoever has the
money will be 'daddy' and the ones without will be in
the 'child' role. A good child who flatters daddy and
pumps his ego gets a raise. A bad child who
contradicts daddy and makes him look stupid risks
demotion. Forcing people into those roles is always
perceived as a tremendous slap in the face, especially
if one ethinic group tends to get pushed into that
position. A few corporations and private programs will
genuinely understand people and work well with them,
and for them it will be very positive. For those who
are not so good with people, a system which forces
some into dependency roles and enables others to
become 'daddy' will produce chaotic results. The
Stanford Prison Experiment is one example. State
programs have the possibility of transparency and
accountability, but private programs can be slippery.
Numerous "boot camp" programs for teens have been
caught in scandals involving horrific abuse. That kind
of thing is why we have public supervision over
programs involving people controlling other people.
Many adults in the business world and in politics get
addicted to that 'daddy' role and misuse it by
emotionally abusing those in the 'child' position.
Some degree of accountability is always necessary, and
it cannot be private regulation of private enterprise.
If your product is an object, no problem... but if
your product is human beings, you need another layer
of accountability not needed in normal companies. You
just can't say "everyone take care of everybody else,
I trust you". You have to provide systems of
transparency and accountability, and some degree of
government involvement, or at least involvement of
independent NGOs, is necessary when private entities
perform psychological experiments on human beings.
Messing with someone's sense of security is always a
psychological experiment, it is social engineering.
Welfare too is social engineering, so it all has to be
looked at in terms of its real effects, not on
ideological assumptions about what will happen if
people are thrown out of public programs.
Never try a social engineering experiment on a large
scale without first trying it on intermediate levels.
Welfare reform is not a bad idea, but it has to be
done in a way that doesn't put people in a
psychological bind because that just creates extra
tension which is taken out on real children. When
adults play those daddy/child games, it is humiliating
for the losers, who often inflict their humiliation on
whoever is below them on the social hierarchy, i.e.
kids and submissive women. People need to know the
system that keeps them from falling is not run by
people who despise weakness and use their position of
power to abuse the weak.
Michael
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo">http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo</a>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>