"welfare hurts the poor"

[moorobot]

The view that "welfare hurts the poor" is inconsistent with the way in which many if not most libertarians view human action. In this view of human action, people attempt to better there own states of affairs; they are self-interested in this way. This view is often invoked to argue against certain laws regulating the market.

However, the view that welfare makes the poor worse off contradicts this premise about human beings; to say that they would be better off without welfare when they choose to be on welfare as opposed to other alternatives which they do not choose but could would be to deny that human beings seek to better there own states of affairs.

If they would really be better off without welfare they wouldn't take welfare when given the option but would do all the things you would say they would do if there were no welfare (for example, prepare better, save more, work more etc) even though they have the option of going on welfare; in other words, if it were true that welfare hurt the poor, they would avoid taking welfare because "welfare hurts the poor" (i.e. them).

Revealed preference theory demonstrates that people on welfare would not be better off without welfare. Unless, of course, you wish to make the paternalist claim that you know the interest of individuals better that those individuals know their own interest.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Revealed preference theory demonstrates that people on welfare would not be better off without welfare. Unless, of course, you wish to make the paternalist claim that you know the interest of individuals better that those individuals know their own interest.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct assuming the welfare system was there. There is no way to know what their preferences would be between a world with no welfare and the current one. SOmeone once said something along the lines of democracies are doomed to fall when the people realize they can vote themselves gifts from the treasury.

[Money2Burn]

I'm about to go to sleep, but the one problem I see with this upon my first glance is that there are some people haven't "chosen" to be on welfare. They were born into it and it is all they have known their entire lives and they have become dependant upon it. In a sense, this dependancy could block their ability to "perceive" that they would, or could, be better off without welfare.

Also, the traits that you list of being able to prepare better, save more, etc. aren't they characteristics of people who have longer(?) time preference and doesn't welfare reinforce a short(?) time preference mentality in it's recipients?

I'm not sure if any of my post will be cogent or coherent, when I wake up in the morning and read it again, but in any case, I enjoy your posts even though I don't generally ascribe to a socialist mentality. I find your posts interesting, well thought out, and informative.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The view that "welfare hurts the poor" is inconsistent with the way in which many if not most libertarians view human action. In this view of human action, people attempt to better there own states of affairs; they are self-interested in this way. This view is often invoked to argue against certain laws regulating the market.

However, the view that welfare makes the poor worse off contradicts this premise about human beings; to say that they would be better off without welfare when they choose to be on welfare as opposed to other alternatives which they do not choose but could would be to deny that human beings seek to better there own states of affairs.

If they would really be better off without welfare they wouldn't take welfare when given the option but would do all the things you would say they would do if there were no welfare (for example, prepare better, save more, work more etc) even though they have the option of going on welfare; in other words, if it were true that welfare hurt the poor, they would avoid taking welfare because "welfare hurts the poor" (i.e. them).

Revealed preference theory demonstrates that people on welfare would not be better off without welfare. Unless, of course, you wish to make the paternalist claim that you know the interest of individuals better that those individuals know their own interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

All youve done here is show the shortcomings of revealed preference theory in explaining anything beyond simplistic microeconomic problems.

[BCPVP]

You should read more about praxeology as it seems like you read just enough to get the wheels spinning but didn't keep reading on. It is certainly possible for a person to have an end (better their condition) and choose a mean that will not fulfill their ends. People are fallible and make mistakes. That in no way contradicts that people act in ways that they believe will achieve a better state of affairs.

[plzleenowhammy]

incentives are the basic motivations for human actions. if you give ppl an incentive to be poor then they will be.

[Felz]

It's pointless to argue about the poverty trap with Rothbard disciples as the poverty trap is a neoclassical concept - based on utility.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
You should read more about praxeology as it seems like you read just enough to get the wheels spinning but didn't keep reading on. It is certainly possible for a person to have an end (better their condition) and choose a mean that will not fulfill their ends. People are fallible and make mistakes. That in no way contradicts that people act in ways that they believe will achieve a better state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor does it support that they do consistently act in ways they believe will achieve a better long term state of affairs. And there are plenty of counter examples that show they dont.

The reality is that short term pleasure seeking/pain avoidance trump anything long term for the vast majority of humans.

[bookish]

[ QUOTE ]
The reality is that short term pleasure seeking/pain avoidance trump anything long term for the vast majority of humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

The increasing number of people taking on large debts to go to university across the world argues against this.

Anyway welfare doesn't hurt the poor. Some people use welfare in a way you don't like, but that doesn't mean it hurts them. And the European equivalent helped me and my family enormously for a brief period in my life.

(I mean enormously in the sense that a small amount of money coming in made all the difference - not that I received a lot of money).

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
the one problem I see with this upon my first glance is that there are some people haven't "chosen" to be on welfare. They were born into it and it is all they have known their entire lives and they have become dependant upon it. In a sense, this dependancy could block their ability to "perceive" that they would, or could, be better off without welfare.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I believe that alot depends on the person. My hatred (well, most of it) for the welfare system comes from growing up in the welfare system. I don't know when I realized it, although in retrospect, I can't remember a time when I didn't know, that I could do better than the way I was raised.

I also saw first hand the number of able bodied, otherwise intelligent people who absolutely refused to work because they never saw the need to.

This is the problem with the welfare system. Most people will not starve to death before they become productive members of society, and those that do I have no sympathy for.

My only concern is that killing welfare will probably increase street crime, as some would rather turn to a life of crime than productivity. This is certainly not a valid reason not to end welfare though.