The Evil Consequences of the Welfare State
What Happens When You Tell People They Don't Have To Take Responsibility For Their Actions
Came across the following article "The Frivolity of Evil" by Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple is the author of "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes The Underclass" and until recently worked as a psychiatrist in a slum hospital and a prison in England. In his work, Dalrymple has seen first hand the consequences of the welfare state.
I've often commented about the inherent flaws in the system of "mis-representative democracy" that prevails in the western world today. In particular, the combination of politicians own self interest to get re-elected and their ability to raise the money to do so by taxation (which is then used to bribe particular groups) means that the system has an in-built bias towards ever increasing levels of government taxation and public spending. This isn't a "flaw" of the system, it's a feature!
Even more disturbing, however, is the moral depravity of the system and the evil that results when that system not only condones but actually encourages irresponsible behaviour. Dalrymple's article describes this very starkly when he talks about the breakdown of traditional social structures in the slum areas where the underclass reside. In particular, the demise of the family and the incidence of single-parent households.
"A necessary, though not sufficient, condition is the welfare state, which makes it possible, and sometimes advantageous, to behave like this. Just as the IMF is the bank of last resort, encouraging commercial banks to make unwise loans to countries that they know the IMF will bail out, so the state is the parent of last resort—or, more often than not, of first resort. The state, guided by the apparently generous and humane philosophy that no child, whatever its origins, should suffer deprivation, gives assistance to any child, or rather the mother of any child, once it has come into being. In matters of public housing, it is actually advantageous for a mother to put herself at a disadvantage, to be a single mother, without support from the fathers of the children and dependent on the state for income. She is then a priority; she won't pay local taxes, rent, or utility bills.
As for the men, the state absolves them of all responsibility for their children. The state is now father to the child. The biological father is therefore free to use whatever income he has as pocket money, for entertainment and little treats. He is thereby reduced to the status of a child, though a spoiled child with the physical capabilities of a man: petulant, demanding, querulous, self-centered, and violent if he doesn't get his own way. The violence escalates and becomes a habit. A spoiled brat becomes an evil tyrant."
I would encourage you to read the whole article.
This then, is the result of the misguided meddling of arrogant and ignorant politicians who believe they know best how people should live their lives.
"Ultimately, the moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites is responsible for the continuing social disaster that has overtaken Britain, a disaster whose full social and economic consequences have yet to be seen. A sharp economic downturn would expose how far the policies of successive governments, all in the direction of libertinism, have atomized British society, so that all social solidarity within families and communities, so protective in times of hardship, has been destroyed. The elites cannot even acknowledge what has happened, however obvious it is, for to do so would be to admit their past responsibility for it, and that would make them feel bad. Better that millions should live in wretchedness and squalor than that they should feel bad about themselves—another aspect of the frivolity of evil. Moreover, if members of the elite acknowledged the social disaster brought about by their ideological libertinism, they might feel called upon to place restraints upon their own behavior, for you cannot long demand of others what you balk at doing yourself."
As to this last point, think David Blunkett! What kind of example was he? On his resignation, there was a lot of humbug about how his private life was his affair but the points raised above put this issue in a somewhat different light. If an individual chooses to act in an immoral fashion, well that's up to them if they are prepared to accept the consequences. However, when a political elite encourages and enables immoral behaviour, the consequences of which the law-abiding citizen has to live with, that's a different story.
Came across the following article "The Frivolity of Evil" by Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple is the author of "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes The Underclass" and until recently worked as a psychiatrist in a slum hospital and a prison in England. In his work, Dalrymple has seen first hand the consequences of the welfare state.
I've often commented about the inherent flaws in the system of "mis-representative democracy" that prevails in the western world today. In particular, the combination of politicians own self interest to get re-elected and their ability to raise the money to do so by taxation (which is then used to bribe particular groups) means that the system has an in-built bias towards ever increasing levels of government taxation and public spending. This isn't a "flaw" of the system, it's a feature!
Even more disturbing, however, is the moral depravity of the system and the evil that results when that system not only condones but actually encourages irresponsible behaviour. Dalrymple's article describes this very starkly when he talks about the breakdown of traditional social structures in the slum areas where the underclass reside. In particular, the demise of the family and the incidence of single-parent households.
"A necessary, though not sufficient, condition is the welfare state, which makes it possible, and sometimes advantageous, to behave like this. Just as the IMF is the bank of last resort, encouraging commercial banks to make unwise loans to countries that they know the IMF will bail out, so the state is the parent of last resort—or, more often than not, of first resort. The state, guided by the apparently generous and humane philosophy that no child, whatever its origins, should suffer deprivation, gives assistance to any child, or rather the mother of any child, once it has come into being. In matters of public housing, it is actually advantageous for a mother to put herself at a disadvantage, to be a single mother, without support from the fathers of the children and dependent on the state for income. She is then a priority; she won't pay local taxes, rent, or utility bills.
As for the men, the state absolves them of all responsibility for their children. The state is now father to the child. The biological father is therefore free to use whatever income he has as pocket money, for entertainment and little treats. He is thereby reduced to the status of a child, though a spoiled child with the physical capabilities of a man: petulant, demanding, querulous, self-centered, and violent if he doesn't get his own way. The violence escalates and becomes a habit. A spoiled brat becomes an evil tyrant."
I would encourage you to read the whole article.
This then, is the result of the misguided meddling of arrogant and ignorant politicians who believe they know best how people should live their lives.
"Ultimately, the moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites is responsible for the continuing social disaster that has overtaken Britain, a disaster whose full social and economic consequences have yet to be seen. A sharp economic downturn would expose how far the policies of successive governments, all in the direction of libertinism, have atomized British society, so that all social solidarity within families and communities, so protective in times of hardship, has been destroyed. The elites cannot even acknowledge what has happened, however obvious it is, for to do so would be to admit their past responsibility for it, and that would make them feel bad. Better that millions should live in wretchedness and squalor than that they should feel bad about themselves—another aspect of the frivolity of evil. Moreover, if members of the elite acknowledged the social disaster brought about by their ideological libertinism, they might feel called upon to place restraints upon their own behavior, for you cannot long demand of others what you balk at doing yourself."
As to this last point, think David Blunkett! What kind of example was he? On his resignation, there was a lot of humbug about how his private life was his affair but the points raised above put this issue in a somewhat different light. If an individual chooses to act in an immoral fashion, well that's up to them if they are prepared to accept the consequences. However, when a political elite encourages and enables immoral behaviour, the consequences of which the law-abiding citizen has to live with, that's a different story.
posted by Kevin Francis at
6:46 pm
