Philosophical thoughts on welfare

 

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty estimates that at least 3 million American men, women, and children will be homeless for at least some part of each year[1]. Record numbers of people sleep on the streets because they cannot keep up with the rising cost of living in the growing economy. Despite this growing economy, homelessness and poverty has actually grown in the past 20 years[2] and will accelerate as Iraqi War veterans join the ranks of the homeless. The American community suffers because the homeless consume a disproportionate amount of public resources, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars per person. They also often wreak havoc upon commercial areas and residential neighborhoods and damage property. A possible solution to America’s homeless problem is for the government to engage in a massive welfare program to feed and shelter the homeless, but this money has to come from somewhere, in this case the taxpayers. It would be a burden on the working class that many would consider unfair, since the homeless would not have to work.

Here we see a conflict of interest between the individual’s property rights as the government forcibly takes away the taxpayer’s money, and the interests of the community as many of its members are left behind on the streets. Unlike other taxes such as road repair or public education, the distinction here is that the government is taking money from those who earn a living and giving it directly to the homeless, and this does not directly benefit the wage-earners. However, Americans highly value the democratic ideal, and Henry Rosemont Jr. argues in A Confucian Critique of Western Liberalism that America is less than a perfect democracy because the people under the poverty line is underrepresented while rich corporations are overrepresented[3]. In a good democracy, Rosemont argues that if the community makes certain that all its people are fed and sheltered, then everyone in that community would benefit. Rosemont’s approach is to adopt the Confucianist idea of a total welfare state that feeds, shelters, and educates the homeless. This paper will argue that this solution will not solve the social problem that homelessness creates because of inherent flaws in its theory of rights and responsibilities.

Rosemont’s theory of rights says that people have three kinds of rights: civil and political, social and economic, and solidarity rights[4]. A brief explanation of these rights as it relates to the homeless would be that everyone has the right to a food, adequate housing, education, and health care, in addition to basic civil rights. This can be traced to Confucianism, and a description of this philosophy will reveal Rosemont’s underlying assumptions. Since Rosemont and Confucious is philosophically the same, throughout this essay their names would be used interchangeably.

Confucius defines an individual by his relationship with others. Everyone has duties arising from the different status one holds in relation to others[5]. Confucians aim to create a “harmonious” society where everyone plays their role and is humane to one another, and this creates order because it makes everyone interrelated in a specific way. Confucius holds that how one treats others has an impact on oneself and defines oneself. The person’s actions toward others affects their own attitude toward themselves. Thus, the better one treats another, the superior the person is. And herein lies the connection between the individual and the community: what benefits the community would automatically benefit the individual because the very act of helping the community would mean that that person has improved his or her self. Therefore giving to the homeless would be considered a moral action because it leads to a more harmonious society. To Confucius, the homeless should have rights to food, adequate housing, education, and health care because it would lead to a more harmonious society by giving the homeless the role of being the ones to be cared for, and this role creates a connection between the homeless and the rest of society since now the rest of society has to act the role of being caretakers. These roles define each and every individual and makes them who they are[6]. Thus, the well-off must take care of the poor in order to take their part in society, and the poor provide that service. This is what is meant by a harmonious society.

However, Rosemont’s solution to give freely to the homeless would not solve the homeless situation because if the government created a social safety net that took care of everyone, then there is be far less incentive for taxpayers to work. The government would feed and shelter the taxpayers and their families even if they do not work, and soon the welfare program would be flooded with people who would otherwise have worked. There may not be enough remaining workers to keep up the economy and the homeless program may actually grow. Confucius’s fallacy is the he assumed that what benefits the community must necessarily benefit the individual, the logic being that all individuals are interconnected to make up the community so there is a mutual connection. If the good of the community was also the good of the individual, then Rosemont would be right that the individual’s rights and responsibilities should be aimed toward the good of the community. However, Ayn Rand will show that this is not the case.

Objectivism is a moral code developed by Ayn Rand that asserts that the purpose of a person’s life is to pursue their own happiness and therefore they should act only in their own self-interest[7]. Rand rejects religious morality as arbitrary because technically nothing can say what is right or wrong. Humans are discrete and disconnected individuals and there is no concrete connection between individuals. An Objectivist would ask “why should one act in the interests of another if it does not provide a benefit in return?” Confucius assumed that there would always be a benefit to oneself by helping another, but modern society is composed of strangers most people do not care about (such as the homeless). Thus, there is no purpose in creating a interconnected society if it does not benefit its members. Rand states that the community exists only because it benefits each individual who decides to take part in the community[8]. Therefore it is reason, and not responsibility, as Confucius advocated, that connects the individuals to each other, with reason being defined as actions that further one’s self-interest.

Following this logic, the purpose of the government would be to enforce people’s first-generation rights: make sure contracts are honored, property is protected, and prevent people from violating other peoples’ rights[9]. A social safety net that makes people pay taxes to help others, and not themselves, is not rational. The community in the form of government would be leeching off on members of the community, which defeats the very purpose of a community: to provide mutual benefit for each member. Rosemont’s and Confucius’s fallacy is that they saw the community as an entity in and of itself, and the individuals were to serve the community rather than the other way around. Rand would urge the individual to leave such a community because it is no longer in their self-interest[10].

Since there is no such entity as “the public” – since the public is merely a number of individuals – any claimed or implied conflict of the “public interest” with private interests means that the interests of some men must be sacrificed to the interests of and wishes of others.[11]

 

Another fallacy that Rosemont made is that he did not realize that taxing the taxpayers to give to the homeless would violate the economic rights of the taxpayers. To Rand, it would be fine for an individual to give to the homeless, and it would be rational if it made the individual feel happy[12]. However, if the government taxes people and gives that money to the homeless, then it would be immoral because it stampedes on the rights of those people. She would agree that the government should protect the rights of the homeless, but believe that free food and shelter are not amongst their rights because it violates the more basic rights of others (the taxpayers).

The homeless is not offering anything worthwhile to the community because they do not work, so an Objectivist would say that they do not deserve to be part of the community and in turn the community does not need to accommodate them because it is not in the community’s interest. This suggests a simple and effective solution to the social problem of urban damage and resource drain that the homeless create, while respecting the rights of everyone: give the homeless paid jobs that benefit society. They can clean up streets, wash cars, and water people’s lawns. Rosemont himself would agree that giving jobs to the homeless would not cost the government any money, because the work will offset the damage that the homeless do to urban areas and resources, and at the same time feed the homeless because now they have jobs[13]. He gave the example of when he went to refill gas for his car in Japan, five young men come to clean his car for him, and that cleaning was included in the price of his gas.

Then I come to Washington, and in Washington gas is much cheaper. Nobody washes the tires, nobody else does anything for me, but here, too, there are five young men. The five young men who in Japan are employed to wash my car are, here, standing around, unemployed, waiting to rob my car. I still have to pay for them, through my taxes, through imprisonment, through a failed welfare system. I still have to pay for them. But in Japan at least they clean my car.[14]

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

1. Tyler, Raven. “Homeless in the US grows rapidly.” Newshour Extra 2002. PBS Broadcasting. 10 March 2007. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/homeless.html>

 

2. Vitullo-Martin, Julia. “Homeless in America.” The Wall Street Journal 2007. 10 March 2007. <http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-homeless_in_america.htm>

 

3. Rosemont Jr., Henry. “Whose Democracy? Which Rights?” A Confucian Critique of Modern Western Liberalism. Confucian Ethics 3 (2004).

 

4. Oldstone-Moore, Jennifer. “Confucianism.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

 

5. Rand, Ayn. "The Objectivist Ethics.” The Virtue of Selfishness Chapter 1. New York: Signet, 1964.

 

6. Rand, Ayn. "The Nature of Government.” The Virtue of Selfishness Chapter 14. New York: Signet, 1964.

 

7. Carlisle, Steven. “Objectivism and Society.” Esoteric Age Lecture, Sixth College Writing Program, La Jolla, CA, March 1, 2007.

---

[1] Tyler, Raven. “Homeless in the US grows rapidly.” Newshour Extra 2002. PBS Broadcasting. 10 March 2007. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/homeless.html>

[2] Vitullo-Martin, Julia. “Homeless in America.” The Wall Street Journal 2007. 10 March 2007. <http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-homeless_in_america.htm>

[3] Rosemont Jr., Henry. “Whose Democracy? Which Rights?” A Confucian Critique of Modern Western Liberalism. Confucian Ethics 3 (2004).

[4] Rosemont Jr., Henry. “Whose Democracy? Which Rights?” A Confucian Critique of Modern Western Liberalism. Confucian Ethics 3 (2004).

[5] Oldstone-Moore, Jennifer. “Confucianism.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

[6] Oldstone-Moore, Jennifer. “Confucianism.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

[7] Rand, Ayn. "The Objectivist Ethics.” The Virtue of Selfishness Chapter 1. New York: Signet, 1964.

[8] Rand, Ayn. "The Objectivist Ethics.” The Virtue of Selfishness Chapter 1. New York: Signet, 1964.

[9] Carlisle, Steven. “Objectivism and Society.” Esoteric Age Lecture, Sixth College Writing Program, La Jolla, CA, March 1, 2007.

[10] Rand, Ayn. "The Nature of Government.” The Virtue of Selfishness Chapter 14. New York: Signet, 1964.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Rosemont Jr., Henry. “Whose Democracy? Which Rights?” A Confucian Critique of Modern Western Liberalism. Confucian Ethics 3 (2004).

[14] Ibid.