41

What are the major arguments for why the state should not provide for the basic necessities of its people? I am thinking of things like water, food, and housing as "basic necessities".

I think some people prefer a state not to provide these things, but I don't understand why. Without access to these necessities, some people will likely die.

user4012
  • 92,336
  • 19
  • 225
  • 386
hunter 2050
  • 551
  • 1
  • 4
  • 4
  • 21
    This question is opinion-based. You should rephrase it to "What are the major rationales that people use to justify the state not providing basic necessities" or something like that. – J Doe Apr 06 '17 at 19:02
  • 2
    @JDoe - The tag wiki says that answers should be based on reason and references to bodies of theory. That should be enough guidance to provide a solid answer IMO. – indigochild Apr 06 '17 at 19:08
  • 86
    Please note that most of the answers below are from the point of view of Americans. Most well-off countries in the world other than the US are happy to provide health care, tuition, help to the poor, etc off taxes taken from richer citizens and businesses. Americans view this as "socialism" and somehow for many this gets confused with "communism", which is a taboo word in the US. Most democracies include some aspects of socialism, in order to make sure every citizen can have access to the basics no matter their situation. The US the the exception here, not the norm. – Drunken Code Monkey Apr 06 '17 at 19:14
  • 3
    @DrunkenCodeMonkey America confuses me, as someone from the UK... golly I really hope we do not go down that path with these things, I love me some free healthcare. – Tim Apr 07 '17 at 11:39
  • 1
    @DrunkenCodeMonkey Not only the answers but apparently the votes as well. Looks like people upvote what they agree with regardless of sources or completeness. – JollyJoker Apr 07 '17 at 12:27
  • 4
    @DrunkenCodeMonkey Are they happy to, or are they forced to? What is the socio economic impact of investing resources into redistribution instead of expansion? – Drunk Cynic Apr 07 '17 at 13:35
  • 11
    @DrunkenCodeMonkey The question itself only makes sense from the point of view of a developed, stable country. I doubt the questioner wonders why the government of Somalia does not guarantee basic necessities for all its citizens. – IllusiveBrian Apr 07 '17 at 13:40
  • 1
    You may want to look into the idea of a "guaranteed minimum income", which mostly solves the issue of providing the basic necessities while avoiding many of the "problems" pointed out in the answers below. – Dan C Apr 07 '17 at 14:57
  • 3
    For an evidence-based response, I'm reminded of Amartya Sen's important research on famine; finding that nearly always for big historical famines there was sufficient resource available to potentially feed everyone, but there was not enough of what he called "entitlement" to food. Both the Holodomor and the Irish Potato famine are normally cited as politically constructed famines where the state made an explicit decision not to provide for basic necessities, but Sen expanded this to consider other events such as the Bengal famine. – pjc50 Apr 07 '17 at 15:00
  • 8
    @Tim And therein lies the fundamental misunderstanding - nothing is actually free. Everything the government gives to you was taken from someone else. – reirab Apr 07 '17 at 20:00
  • @reirab but it looks free... I consistently know how much I will take home each month, and I have no worries about an expensive medical bill if I break my arm. The only slight concern is a dental bill, and they're typically low enough for me to absorb the cost. – Tim Apr 07 '17 at 20:01
  • 5
    @reirab Which is just another fundamental misunderstanding. There are side effects that have to be taken into account, for example, providing basic necessities (when well done, etc) may reduce social instability, from which the whole group benefits. – Martin Rubey Apr 07 '17 at 20:04
  • 2
    @Tim For the most part, that's also true in the U.S. It's just handled by health insurance instead of by the government. – reirab Apr 07 '17 at 20:06
  • @reirab do you not have an excess which you have to pay before the the insurance company will pay? Like you have to pay $300 of the medical bill? – Tim Apr 07 '17 at 20:06
  • 1
    @Tim It varies depending on the plan. In most cases, it falls into the same "It's an amount I can absorb without much problem" category as the dental expenses you mentioned earlier. You can get more expensive plans with low/no deductible or less expensive ones with higher deductibles. For a normal doctor visit, though, most plans charge nowhere remotely close to $300. It's usually been about $20 for mine. – reirab Apr 07 '17 at 20:11
  • 1
    Two primary arguments: "People are lazy" and "I don't want to pay for it". – Hot Licks Apr 07 '17 at 22:00
  • 10
    @reirab In the USA, healthcare is an "industry." In many other parts of the world, it's a "service". I find it curious that making bureaucrats in an insurance company rich is acceptable, but paying less money in taxes for an equal level of service is not. But then, I haven't been brainwashed since birth into believing that America is by definition the best possible place on earth. – alephzero Apr 08 '17 at 13:19
  • 2
    @alephzero In all parts of the world (except maybe true Communisms or places where there isn't any healthcare,) healthcare is a service industry... It's not like healthcare providers aren't getting paid outside of the U.S. Also, contrary to popular belief, many insurance 'companies' in the U.S. are actually non-profit organizations, not for-profit corporations, so the profit motivation is largely overstated by the left. For example, my insurance provider (Blue Cross of Tennessee) is an NPO. The difference is only whether the bureaucrats involved work for the government or a non-gov't org. – reirab Apr 08 '17 at 18:32
  • 5
    Whatever the state provides, it tends to monopolize. Any monopoly magnifies the consequences of mismanagement. – Anton Sherwood Apr 09 '17 at 05:35
  • 2
    "Why should the state not provide for basic necessities?" Why should it? I guess there are arguments for and against it. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Apr 10 '17 at 07:36
  • Are you really asking whether they should provide it, or whether they should pay for it? The political arguments deployed against the two are different. For example, in both the US and the UK, the state to some extent pays for food for people who can't otherwise afford it, but (for the most part) in neither country does the state produce the food, or deliver it to the people in question. The state pays for it, but it's provided by some combination of farmers, importers, distributors and retailers none of whom are state officials, and aren't even supervised by the welfare departments. – Steve Jessop Apr 10 '17 at 10:59
  • By contrast, in both countries the state is intimately involved in the provision of education. Albeit not to all students, since there are alternative providers. – Steve Jessop Apr 10 '17 at 11:03
  • 1
    I would vote to close as opinionated, if I could. As reflected by the first few pages of answers, this is all a big mess of opinions. The chance to actually look at objective reasons (which, N.B., might very well be objective psychological reasons) has been wasted. The question contains "why the state should not provide" but most if not all answers answer the question "why does the state not provide", which is wildly different (and, not true, at least outside the U.S.). Most answers do not cite any sources or research, but state debatable facts (from a very one-sided perspective). – AnoE Apr 10 '17 at 13:21
  • 1
    The state's agents (bureaucrats) get paid regardless of their performance. If they mismanage, misappropriate, or just plain steal the resources, they are not held accountable by the people. People are not free to withhold their consent nor payments (taxes), and cannot patronize another provider (competition). Therefore, state provided resources are nearly always less efficient and less innovative than those provided by people with an actual ownership stake (profit). Even the purest most competent agent will retire, and there's no guarantee their replacement will hold the same values. – Chloe Apr 10 '17 at 17:38
  • 3
    I love how the most reasonable information in this whole thread is a comment which is more upvoted than the question or any of the comments. U.S. people are in a deadlock with problems other countries solved long ago. lol – msb Apr 11 '17 at 01:19
  • 2
    as the state is nothing but a collection of people, asking the state to provide something is the same as asking others to provide something. So you can really essentialize your question by asking this: why shouldn't you provide for your neighbors? Once you do that, the answer should be quite clear. – dannyf Apr 15 '17 at 16:01

14 Answers14

79

The state cannot wave a magic wand and generate the water, food, and raw materials necessary for providing what you've defined as basic necessities. The state has to either pay for those resources, or force someone to give them to it. In a modern state, the state usually pays for goods by collecting taxes in the form of currency from its people. So, in order to provide its people with basic necessities, it must first take from them money to pay for the necessities. The basic argument against the government providing basic necessities for all, then, is that in order to do so they have to increase the tax burden on their population.

Whether or not the state is justified in using its power to take taxes and spend them on basic necessities for all is a moral argument about what duty the people have to support others with their work, and whether the government should be the ones to execute that duty. Individualists would say that a person has no particular duty to help others in need, so the state should not force them to do so by proxy. There is also an argument that the same money that would be given to the state to provide necessities would be better spent on charities and other organizations dedicated to the goal, because they will better manage it, and because that money is being given freely rather than taxed.

This does not even attempt to address the issue of what "basic necessity" actually means. Even the simplest necessity, water, needs to meet a certain standard of cleanliness and get sanitized before it can be considered potable, a standard which is wildly different depending on what area of the world you live in.

IllusiveBrian
  • 6,966
  • 1
  • 22
  • 29
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Philipp Apr 07 '17 at 23:36
  • I upvoted this for the first sentence, even though you seem to have fallen for the misconception that "the state" is itself capable of action, if it is just given money. It isn't. (See my answer for elaboration.) – Wildcard Apr 08 '17 at 01:18
  • 1
    Is that a moral argument? I'm not sure that it is. There's certainly a debate about to what extent states should redistribute the wealth, but I wouldn't suggest it is a moral argument. Even if there is a moral factor, it isn't the only, and isn't even the biggest, component. There are economic and growth factors, too. – corsiKa Apr 09 '17 at 02:23
  • 8
    "There is also an argument that the same money that would be given to the state to provide necessities would be better spent on charities and other organizations dedicated to the goal, because they will better manage it" - that is certainly a common argument - usually made without any supporting evidence... –  Apr 09 '17 at 23:03
  • @corsiKa - If you think that people should do what is economical, then you are making a moral argument that people should do what provides the most benefits at the lowest cost. That is the moral position of utilitarianism. Any time you are talking about what people should do, this is a moral argument. – indigochild May 09 '17 at 00:31
  • 4
    @HorusKol, you missed the more important component of that argument: because that money is being *given freely* rather than taxed (i.e. forcibly extorted). (Was that deliberate cherry picking?) You may argue that charities manage money badly, but as you are not being forced to contribute to them, the point is rather moot. The burden of proof is on your side, on the claim that the government does the best job of money management, because it's only the government that demands contribution "for the good of others" on threat of imprisonment. – Wildcard Jul 22 '17 at 02:46
  • 2
    To evaluate a tax's economic utility to taxpayers, what's paid out should be measured, as measured against what's gained by taxpayers from how the government uses those funds. For example, healthy taxpayers might pay out to fund a general vaccination -- but the taxpayers themselves save money and income otherwise lost from the sickness prevented, (e.g. a grocer has more business when his workers and customers don't die of smallpox). IllusiveBrian's answer is incomplete: it considers only what's paid out, but does not show that what's gained must invariably be a net loss. – agc Sep 28 '17 at 21:22
  • @agc The question was asking for arguments against, so I haven't included any arguments in favor. However your metric assumes the alternative to paying for one thing is to pay for another, but many would argue that a person can choose for themselves whether to be vaccinated and then pay for their own healthcare or die if their refusal turns out poorly. Of course even that doesn't consider negative externalities of a person being sick with a contagious disease but that seems out of scope. – IllusiveBrian Feb 08 '23 at 16:30
70

DISCLAIMER: The question can be interpreted two ways: (1) "What are the reasons not to provide" - which is a subjective question because not everyone agrees with said reasons; and (2) as @J.Doe's comment noted, "What are the major rationales that people use to justify the state not providing basic necessities".

As such, I provided the answer to the second form, listing major rationales. Therefore, each bullet point below should not be taken as objective "X is true", but as "X is a reason held true by some people who oppose the motion". In other words, please don't request that I prove the objective truthiness of each argument, as the answer is descriptive and not prescriptive

  1. At its core, many arguments condense to the fact that basic necessities aren't free.

    • The phrase "state provides X" is a nice verbal abstraction which in reality means "someone's resources are taken[1], so that the state has the resources to provide X".

      For every $10,000 that your state "gives someone in basic resources", that means at least[2] $10,000 has to be taken - using the power of the state - from another person, usually against their will[3], [4] (in most modern states, that means if that another person refuses to fork off that money to the state, they get sent to jail for tax evasion. Like Wesley Snipes but not as good looking or rich :)

    • Another alternative (often combined with the first one) for that abstraction is from the supply side instead of demand side. To wit, the state forces basic necessity providers to work for less - or no - pay - to provide those necessities.

      "For less" - that's for example the economic model of socialized medicine in most Western European countries - their model works because their national health system severely underpays their doctors, especially residents; as well as other medical service providers. Since it's single payer, the providers have no recourse; they are forced to accept being underpaid (ex1, ex2 for UK).

      "For no pay" - that was, for example, the economic model of "panem et circenses" ("bread and circuses") model of the dole in Ancient Rome (and yes, that "panem" is the exact origin of the name of the country in "Hunger Games" books and movies). Rome could afford said bread (in the form of "dole") for so cheap because of slave labor; and obviously, gladiators providing the entertainment were slaves.

    Aside from that main consideration, there are other ones. They include things like:

  2. Efficiency considerations.

    The state is often a very poor vehicle for providing anything well OR efficiently. The stereotypical example here is the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

  3. Moral hazard.

    Basically, you're incentivizing people to be a burden to others (and people do tend to respond to incentives, surprise!). If I can make &^*(ty life decisions and be sure that I'll still be taken care of no matter what, I'm far more likely to be lazy, and make bad/imprudent choices.

    This issue isn't some newfangled neocon/libertarian notion. It was most famously discussed by Aesop in one of his fables.

  4. It can cause issues for overall economy.

    The specific cases of education and health care demonstrate that efficiency and redistribution may conflict.
    (["Social and population policy. Considerations on efficiency and equity" by Gomez De Leon Cruces J ] - PubMed 12158040)

  5. It presents an unstable (and very dangerous) equilibrum in a society.

    Absent abundant cheap energy (not available on Earth yet, or anytime soon), abundant material goods (not available yet), and general post-scarcity economy, you need a sizeable portion of population making net contributions to the economy.

    Unfortunately, due to moral hazard, you won't have that; ensuring that earlier or later you'll run out of Other People's Money to pay for those "basic necessities". Exacerbated by double demographic bombs of (1) Well to do spoiled westerners not having enough kids to fund their retirement and (2) people who are on basic income - and thus have the leisure - out-reproducing those who are willing to work by a large margin. In a way #2 is already happening, e.g. in Israel with secular vs. Hareidim communities being a very clear example stripped of external factors like race differences.

  6. People have different, and often, unreasonable, expectations of what "basic" means. @Brythan's later answer covers this better than mine, but my explanation is as follows:

    One person's "basic necessities" aren't an objectively defined category and may differ from other's.

    • E.g. Do we include food in basic necessities? OK, that seems somewhat reasonable to most people. Do we include ANY food? including overpriced and unhealthy junk food, sodas etc...? including exotic expensive food like quinoa or beef (instead of oats and chicken)? What about people who'll use their food stamps to buy 4x-priced organic food at upscale food retailer that's near their house instead of spending extra 1 hour going to cheaper generic supermarket with far less expensive non-organic food? Does their food lifestyle get included in "basic"?

    • Do you include housing in basic necessities? OK, that's a bit more controversial but I can see people at least somewhat agreeing with where that premise comes from. Do we include ANY housing? Does it have to be housing in super-expensive metropolitan area or can we insist that basic housing MUST be in a much cheaper area; and if you need to commute longer for work, that's the cost of having "free" housing.

    • How about healthcare? Again, in principle, people may agree to an extent (very few people object to Medicaid in USA). Should we cover exotic and unnecessary and expensive medical stuff like sex reassignment surgery? Cosmetic surgery? "BEST" medicine (patented instead of generic pills)? How about medicine that's required as a result of someone's bad choices and not bad luck? I really don't feel it's fair to make me pay for replacing an alcoholic's liver. If he didn't want to die, shouldn't have drank his liver away. How about super expensive end of life treatment for someone whose life expectancy is <6 months in 99% of cases?

    • How about college education? Do I really have to pay for someone to study modern interpretive dance and if I refuse to, I'm a bad greedy person? What's wrong with requiring people who get "free" education to be forced into plumbing classes or nursing school?

    • How about Internet? Some people assert "free" broadband is a basic necessity (my personal POV: give me "you need expensive broadband to be able to study" - somehow, prior generations managed to get educated and successful first without internet; and then with dialup. Wikipedia doesn't require broadband, nor does StackExchange. Streaming movies/online games isn't "basic").

  7. Additionally, there are non-rational, political tribal reasons.

    Basically, support for "basic income", like most of social welfare spending, is associated with - using American political grouping - "blue tribe" (typically incorrectly expressed as "left wing").

    Therefore, people are very likely to oppose the concept merely because they - for reasons that may have absolutely nothing to do with this specific topic - belong to "red tribe"; and that imposes a pre-built bundle of sociopolitical positions that people tend to adopt, often without bothering to familiarize themselves with nitty gritty details (this is true for both tribes of course).

    So, some people oppose this just because "Daddy always voted for Reagan who was against welfare, so I am too against it". It's not based on issues but on tribal membership.

[1] - one might quibble that deficit spending using sovereign debt avoids the problem of taking someone's money. Except that's incorrect - you simply time-shift the resource collection from current taxpayers to the next generation whose taxes will be used to service that debt.

[2] - In reality, it costs the state much much more than $10,000 to provide $10,000 worth of basic services

[3] - yadda yadda social contract social shmantract. The whole point is that the "social contract" does NOT have a nice and tidy wording that says "X, Y and Z are included" - see section #6 of my answer

[4] - and if you say "well most people want to help those less fortunate" - if they truly want to help them, that's what voluntary donation to charity is for. When you "help" someone by giving them Someone Else's Money, you didn't help anyone. The person who had their money taken helped; and they weren't asked if they wanted to, at least by you.

user4012
  • 92,336
  • 19
  • 225
  • 386
  • 6
    A lot of interesting points, though somewhat mixed with opinions. I particular appreciate (6): getting a definition of "basics" is really difficult. On the other hand, I find (4) unsubstantiated. I actually remember reports (from Denmark maybe?) where unemployment aid was judged as stimulating innovation: being freed from the worry of being jobless and subsequently penniless, people were more willing to quit their job and mount their own start-ups. A number of successful start-up owners specifically mentioned that since they had a family, they would NOT have done so otherwise. – Matthieu M. Apr 07 '17 at 18:19
  • 1
    @MatthieuM. - hopefully my freshly addded disclaimer addresses point #4 - the answer set out to list and describe the reasoning; not to defend it. Tangentially, a study in Denmark may not necessarily hold true in every polity; and "stimulating innovation" is a qualitative but not a quantitative measure. You can still arrive at the overall ESE that's bad in aggregate, but achieve a couple of useful startups in the process (which nevertheless didn't prevent overall aggregate bad result). – user4012 Apr 07 '17 at 18:55
  • 4
    @MatthieuM. - again, tangentially, if innovation is specifically is your desired goal, there are far more precise and less moral-hazardy ways to achive that (e.g. specific budget allocated on "incubator insurance", to be paid specifically to cover unemployment for those who are trying to establish a viable startup. This immediately eliminates a large part of the moral hazard - even more so if it's funded out of marginal profits of past startups it funded; which not only eliminates all moral hazard but ALSO self-regulates - if the policy is good, more profits => more funding). – user4012 Apr 07 '17 at 18:58
  • 1
    Nice disclaimer; it certainly puts things into perspective. We could argue about how best to get a booming economy... but honestly I probably don't know enough about the topic for the discussion to be worth your while ;) – Matthieu M. Apr 07 '17 at 19:46
  • @MatthieuM. Maybe its different in Denmark, but in the US, most startups fail. So freeing people to waste their time on their startup doesn't seem like the best way to utilize limited resources. OTOH, if you can convince other's to FREELY give you money to start your company, that I would think is more efficient. – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 00:45
  • 5
    @Andy: I would expect most start-ups fail in Denmark too, which is why most people (especially with family) would be reluctant to start one. I suppose the underlying motive is that in average, a single successful start-up will create enough new jobs to cover the unemployment aid given to those which failed. Do note that we are not talking about start-up financing aids here, only unemployment aids for those who fail. – Matthieu M. Apr 08 '17 at 10:17
  • 1
    @Andy - as Matthieu said, the goal isn't to have every startup succeed. Just enough of them to provde net job/company/economic growth. Also, you seem to be thinking "startup"=="silicon valley dotcom". Most startups are things like laundromats, cafes, car shops etc... - small business. – user4012 Apr 08 '17 at 14:06
  • 2
    @user4012 Please don't presume what I think a startup is. Go do your own research, and you'll see that most startups fail. If a bank/private investor isn't willing to back a startup, I don't think a country should by providing a basic income level either. Its the same reason you shouldn't loan someone money to buy a car; if a bank has refused them, its because they're likely not going to repay the money. – Andy Apr 09 '17 at 20:15
  • "I suppose the underlying motive is that in average, a single successful start-up will create enough new jobs to cover the unemployment aid given to those which failed. Do note that we are not talking about start-up financing aids here, only unemployment aids for those who fail." You'd have to have something to prove that, and that the jobs it creates are worthwhile (e.g., yet another cafe paying min wage is hardly worth creating). I know we're not talking about gov't funding startups. The point that was made ... – Andy Apr 09 '17 at 20:17
  • 1
    @MatthieuM. ... was that more people would be inclined to quite and try a go at a startup if there were a basic income. My point is that encouraging people to take a fairly risky move because they have basic income is a bad idea (i.e., basic income encouraging more people to take risks is a net bad, not a net good). – Andy Apr 09 '17 at 20:18
  • @Andy: I didn't say there was basic income; I say there was unemployment aid available in case of failure. That is, people are still out of their pockets (and banks pocket) for financing the actual start-up. – Matthieu M. Apr 10 '17 at 06:15
  • @MatthieuM. The question is about basic income, and so is the answer, so all of my comments are in the context that basic income exists. Given that, and given that one of the reasons you claimed was a good outcome of basic income is that people are more willing to risk creating startups, because if it fails, they have their basic income to fall back on. My point is that is NOT a good outcome, because BI also means people may do stupid things due to having that safety net now, such as cashing out retirement to fund the startup. That's my point. And BI usually replaces unemployment. – Andy Apr 10 '17 at 13:48
  • @Andy: My comment was specifically about unemployment aid; it can be seen as basic income for the jobless and not retired, but that's different. Also, in Denmark (and other European countries), you cannot cash out retirement funds so this is a non-risk. As for people attempting stupid/crazy things, well yes, they may. They may indeed sell their homes/liquidate their assets/etc... to fund their start-up, and leave "lean" for a while in the hope of making it big. And if they fail (most do), and declare bankrupt (and lose the invested money), they are back on the job market. – Matthieu M. Apr 10 '17 at 13:58
27

Someone lives in Utah (United States), about fifty miles from Salt Lake City in the middle of a desert. Water costs about a dollar a gallon, as it has to be brought there by truck. Who should pay? The individual choosing to live in the middle of the desert? The county? The state of Utah? The US? North America? The world?

Should a subsistence farmer in rural Mexico pay taxes to support someone living in the middle of a desert in Utah? Should a goatherd in the Sahara pay taxes to support a person in Utah?

There are condominiums in New York City that cost $4000 per square foot, so on the scale of $4 million for a two bedroom apartment. Should sales taxes paid by the homeless in India or Ghana subsidize that?

I think it would be cool to live on a space station with artificial gravity. The International Space Station, which does not have artificial gravity, costs something like $3 million a square foot. And I shudder to think how much water and food cost. That's not even considering air, which you don't mention.

Those are extreme examples. We can set those aside by setting some maximum levels and not subsidizing people with incomes above that.

A less extreme example is that a one bedroom apartment in Manhattan (New York City) costs more than $1000 while a three bedroom house in Dallas, Texas can cost less than $1000. Why should people in Texas have to pay for people to live in Manhattan?

We could of course fix that by relocating everyone to places where water, food, and housing are cheaper. While we're at it, we could choose people's educational paths. Make sure that they were on the right career path. And of course it would be illegal to be unemployed. Of course, when the Soviet Union tried that, it didn't work so well.

Another potential principle is that people should pay for our own decisions. That gives us incentive to make our decisions carefully while still making our own decisions.

Brythan
  • 89,627
  • 8
  • 218
  • 324
  • 27
    Nice use of reductio ad absurdum, I especially like the international space station example. – Justin Ohms Apr 07 '17 at 03:38
  • 10
    RAA requires a necessary and necessarily impossible conclusion to be valid. When you're talking about a spectrum where arbitrary cutoff can be made, it doesn't apply. This is much more slippery slope logical fallacy than reductio logical argument. But it is one that's made regardless, so it does answer the question. – Nij Apr 07 '17 at 04:56
  • 15
    Then again, why should the state provide protection against people just taking the water from those who have it? Why should property be something the state pays for protecting, but welfare shouldn't? – I'm with Monica Apr 07 '17 at 09:16
  • 1
    If you want to understand about the increasing returns to scale of law enforcement, you should ask a separate question. Note that I already suggested the principle that people should pay for their own decisions. If private theft is allowed, then that goes against people paying for their own decisions in the same way as "guaranteed necessities". This is in fact part of the argument that taxes are government theft. – Brythan Apr 07 '17 at 19:10
  • 1
    Perhaps a more telling example would be a 1 bedroom apartment in Manhattan. If that's the Manhattan in New York State, a quick search shows a few (fairly ratty, IMHO) 1 bedrooms for 1000/month. Switch to the Manhattan in Kansas, and better apartments are less than half the price. – jamesqf Apr 07 '17 at 23:16
  • I don't consider free housing to be worth it for me if it doesn't have optional gravity. I suspect that's the REAL reason section 8 didn't work so well. – corsiKa Apr 09 '17 at 02:24
  • +1. This argument's often cited in the case of medical care for people who've acquired preventable conditions due to their choices, e.g. a smoker getting lung cancer. – Nat Apr 09 '17 at 18:22
  • 11
    This does not strike me as "reductio ad absurdum" but simply as "absurdum". The OP did not ask about getting whatever he needs for free, but about essentials. Essential being defined as "without it you die". All the rhetorics in this answer have little to do with that (for example: it would be trivial for the state to declare reasonable zones in which this free basic life support is given, and obviously the desert or the space station would not be part of this). – AnoE Apr 10 '17 at 13:16
  • 1
    While this is a ridiculous line of reasoning, I will admit, it's an argument I've heard people use. –  Apr 14 '17 at 18:08
  • @AnoE "without it you die" is almost what Communism provides. What time range does that provide? For example, if I consume 0 calories per day, I will die eventually. If I consume 1 calorie per day, I will die more slowly. Because 1 calorie/day will allow me to live longer than 0 calories per day, does that qualify as "without it you die"? Perhaps it's more "what is required to maintain your body weight", because then it takes even longer to die. But, some people require 6000 calories/day to maintain their body weight, where others... –  Sep 28 '17 at 22:17
  • Require only 2000. Is it fair that that one person is allowed 3 times more calories per day? Okay, we know that on average it takes 2000 for a healthy person to maintain their weight. But those people that require 6000 are now rapidly losing weight, to the point that their body shuts down because of it. Is that fair? We've essentially killed someone, who made poor life choices, just so we could provide "without it you die" level of care. –  Sep 28 '17 at 22:20
  • @Zymus, these are all just rhethorics. There are states who actually do provide for basic necessities for everybody, no matter how poor (Germany, for example). And no, this does not mean that it is fun to be poor there, but it does mean that it is hard to die as a direct result of hunger, thirst, or having no warm space in winter. Yes, yes, I know, people do so, but that's not the point. The question was not intended to list a long list of examples of how this could be abused, or go wrong, but about political theories of why it would be wrong for the state to provide such. – AnoE Sep 29 '17 at 00:08
  • @AnoE There is no inherent good or evil, right or wrong. Morals are determined by the mutually agreed upon social contracts within a community. What is right for North Korea, may be wrong for Europe. Some might argue that North Korea does provide the basic necessities for all of its citizens, whereas others would say that it is evil what the state of North Korea is doing. With that in mind, because the definition of what is wrong depends on the community, no answer provided here, aside from a list of ways it could go wrong, could possibly be right. –  Sep 29 '17 at 01:19
12

Why should the state not provide for the basic necessities of its people? I am thinking of things like water, food, and housing as "basic necessities."

Housing is built by people.

Water is purified into drinkable form and transported and delivered by people.

Food is grown or cooked or otherwise made ready to eat by people, and is transported and delivered by people.

Look closely at this abstract term you call "the state" and you will see that it is only composed of people. Really it is just an idea. It's an agreed-upon idea held by people.

An idea cannot do something. Only people can do something.

"The State" cannot do anything. It cannot breathe, it cannot think, it cannot fight, it certainly cannot feed people or house them or water them. Only people can do these things. Individual people.

Individuals who work in agreement with some other individuals can accomplish something. But what accomplished something? The idea they agreed upon? No.

No group ever DID anything. It either assisted the activity and "doingness" of the individuals in the group, or it hindered their activity. The group itself never DOES do anything.

Accomplishment depends on the willingness and ability of individuals to DO. Nothing is ever accomplished in any other way.

Preserving that willingness is a vital principle of successful management.

Try to restate the question only in terms of individuals without using the words "government" or "state" or any similar word, and see what conclusions you reach.

If you define "the state" as an entity that does not consist of individuals, that does not depend on individuals, and that does not require personal responsibility, willingness or activity on the part of any individual anywhere, but which can nevertheless be assigned the responsibility for the wellbeing of individuals—then I'm afraid you're looking at a fictitious beast. And one far more implausible than unicorns, dragons or the tooth fairy.

Wildcard
  • 1,933
  • 1
  • 9
  • 13
  • 5
    This is a good argument for why "the state" should not provide anything. I like it quite a bit, except that it's not specific at all to the original question about basic necessities. – industry7 Apr 07 '17 at 18:00
  • 1
    @industry7 It is specific to the question though; basically, why should you work not to feed yourself, but instead to feed someone else? – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 00:53
  • 1
    @Andy, the truth is that generosity is a high virtue, but it's an individual virtue. A group of any sort is incapable of being generous, just as it is incapable of doing anything. (A group, however, can be composed of generous individuals.) – Wildcard Apr 08 '17 at 01:16
  • Generosity doesn't come into play; if the choice between feeding yourself and feeding another, I suspect most would choose feeding themselves first. – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 01:22
  • @Andy, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just reiterating the point of my answer: the original question is based on the misconception that a group is capable of action. Discussing people's need for food is a digression from this point. Of course people need food. Individual responsibility, individual production, and exchange between individuals is the ONLY way that need will ever be filled, in any political or economic system including socialism. This is as inescapable as the need to apply heat in order to fry an egg. – Wildcard Apr 08 '17 at 01:32
  • @Wildcard Ah, I see what you're getting at then. – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 01:44
  • 5
    I feel like this argument is reduces the state to nothing because it's parts are people. Therefore only people can do things. However, this argument can equally be applied to people (and let's totally ignore the state's ownership of things, because that's not people). People can do nothing because it's really their muscles and bones that perform actions. Try to restate your objection only in terms of muscles and bones without using the words "individuals" or "people" or any similar word, and see what conclusions you reach. – Tom Anderson Apr 09 '17 at 04:52
  • @TomAnderson, "the state" is an idea. It's not really "composed of" anything. Ideas come from people. People perform actions. People sometimes perform actions using their bodies. Bodies do not have people. People have bodies. Bodies do not perform actions. The materialistic idea that nothing exists except for matter does not produce any betterment of people or of life. Placing the ultimate importance on The State, or on bones and muscles, are both of them ways to negate the importance of people. People are important. – Wildcard Apr 09 '17 at 05:06
  • 7
    By the same argument, since Congress is a group/idea, not an individual, then then it literally cannot "make a law respecting an establishment of religion". So what's the intent and effect of the First Amendment, if it fails to prohibit the individuals who constitute Congress from working collectively to pass just such a law? Clearly there is some meaning attached to a description of a group or institution "doing something", other than the meaning you dismiss in this answer as formally impossible. In whatever sense "Congress makes laws", the "state" can "redistribute resources". – Steve Jessop Apr 10 '17 at 10:37
  • Of course the First Amendment could be re-worded, since most of the Bill of Rights is phrased in the passive voice: "X shall not be done" rather than "Congress, or the government, or the state, shall not do X". This would work around the objection as to whether it's linguistically legitimate for "Congress" to be the subject of an active verb in the first place. But apparently US politics and law are capable of proceeding without that re-wording, so I feel we probably should respond to the English language as it is actually used in politics, at least in the USA ;-) – Steve Jessop Apr 10 '17 at 10:46
  • 3
    I believe that Wildcard is attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, but I'm not personally convinced. It's not absurd to me that a system of government causes things to occur, since my conception of the state includes its employees, its federal land and property, and even its reputation. The state can do nothing except through its parts. The federal leaders and employees are parts like people have arms. Although it is true that if every leader and employee of the state stopped following the current leaders, the state would essentially dissolve, until that time, the state may provide. – Tom Anderson Apr 12 '17 at 03:47
  • 4
    Re ""The State" cannot do anything.": states are emergent phenomena, that may in their own way be alive, and can both do things people can't, and often do things that no individual citizen wants. Some liken a state to a ship at sea, or a leviathan, or a body; I'd suggest a colossal mule, a host to fleas and ticks, and prone to infections... – agc Apr 16 '17 at 01:45
  • 1
    Did this answer get edited a whole bunch? Rereading the argument presented... I realized there is no argument. It basically just says that a group is composed of individuals, but says nothing about whether or not those individuals that make up "the state" should provide for basic necessities. – industry7 Apr 17 '17 at 18:56
  • @industry7, no edits at all. :) As I noted in a previous comment, the question is based on a misconception. It's moot to discuss "should or shouldn't" when you haven't established "can or cannot." (Should sharp rocks refuse to be used as tools, since they can also be used as weapons? Answer: the question is nonsensical; rocks can't refuse anything.) – Wildcard Apr 17 '17 at 20:12
  • @SteveJessop, actually, you wind up with much clearer rules if you interpret that amendment as explicitly applying to individuals. If each individual congressman who voted in favor of a law abridging freedom of speech were personally liable for breach of the Constitution, you would have a very different scene. I'm not advocating or proposing that, merely pointing out that as it stands the responsibility is not individually fixed, and yet it is still only individuals who can act. (If you think that Congress behaves in a highly responsible manner then we shall simply have to disagree.) – Wildcard Jul 22 '17 at 02:38
8

I think some people prefer a state not to provide these things, but I don't understand why.

It's not that we prefer them, it's that states have a horrible track record doing this. What if the state gave you (mostly) clean water (it's kinda brown and you boil it "just in case"), a simple 4 wall shack in a tract of shacks, and a sack of rice a month. All of your basic needs have been met, but only at the poverty line. Is that really a success? There's two points you need to consider

The state has no disincentive for failure

Businesses fail and cease to exist. People fail and go bankrupt. But the State cannot fail. Indeed, States can maintain failure long after any private solution would have fallen by the wayside.

Take health care. If the State, for instance, takes half your income in taxes and provides "free" health care, most people would say that's good. But what if that system made you wait an average of 20 weeks for necessary care? I once heard someone (in a non-political setting) talk about a dark time in his marriage when his father-in-law had a heart attack. He was treated in Toronto and sent home to await heart surgery... 6 months later. Yet there's no alternatives because Canada has made them all State-based. It's no wonder increasing numbers of Canadians seek treatment in the US.

The problem is that the State has created a distortion in the market. Private pay means you get treatment much quicker, but Private pay also means some people might not get any care at all. Politicians take the latter and rail against it as "unfair". Yet, there's no disincentive for the government to create long wait times for care. Indeed, if the free taxpayer subsidized healthcare actually killed half the patients it treated, there would be an outcry that would simply spark an electoral revolt and the new party in town would pass some minor, and likely meaningless, reforms (I can see the headlines now: "Reforms reduce death rate from 50% to 48%!"). This is the ratchet effect

This can be applied to other topics like

Scarcity doesn't vanish just because you want it to

Let me go back to the health care thing and explain why it's not all it's cracked up to be. In single payer, only the State can pay for your health care and that money comes from higher taxes. But single payer is a cost control mechanism and cost controls never work in the long run.

Let's say you need an MRI. Under private pay, we'll say an MRI costs $250. MRI companies turn a healthy profit and companies that do them are abundant. Single payer comes along and says that the State (now the only legal payer) will only pay $50 for one (a price ceiling). That's an enforced 80% reduction in the price. The politicians look good for stopping the "greedy" MRI companies, but what happens is that you can now only make a profit if you consolidate. 20% of the payment means 80% of the capacity will leave the market. Companies that did only MRIs will close. Hospitals will stop replacing MRI machines and technicians. And MRI wait times will explode because there's no longer capacity.

TL;DR

The problem is that you can't get around supply, demand and price. There's no an unlimited capacity in any market for any good or service. What you're advocating is removing the price factor. Price ceilings never end well

Rent control is a price ceiling on rent. When soldiers returned from World War II and started families (which increased demand for apartments), but stopped receiving military pay, many could not deal with the jumping rent. The government put in price controls, so soldiers and their families could pay the rent and keep their homes. However, this increased the quantity demanded for apartments and lowered the quantity supplied, meaning that available apartments were rapidly taken until none were left for late-comers. Price ceilings create shortages when producers are allowed to abdicate market share or go unsubsidized.

Community
  • 1
Machavity
  • 48,310
  • 11
  • 131
  • 209
  • 15
    I don't think you understand the single payer health system. In England the NHS is funded by the state and provides free care for all; but you don't have to use it. There is a parallel private system. You can choose a (private) doctor and pay in full to get treatment on your terms if you wish and your budget allows. You can also choose to buy (additional) health insurance which will then cover you to get cared for in a beautiful (I've been in one) private hospital. It' doesn't have to be "either-or" it typically is "Both". Most people settle for the decent but underfunded NHS. /1 – mcottle Apr 07 '17 at 07:41
  • 3
    However, high net worth individuals will typically get treated outside of the NHS for reasons of privacy, quality of care, time pressures etc. Look up "Harley Street" which is the famous street in London where the best (or at least the most expensive) private doctors congregate. So, in summary, the NHS, which covers every citizen costs roughly half (per capita) than it costs the American people to cover less than 90% of themselves and the story is similar in every other developed country. /2 – mcottle Apr 07 '17 at 07:53
  • 3
    @mcottle That's very interesting about the UK, but I should note that Canada outlaws private payments (true single payer). The UK would not be a true single payer in that case. – Machavity Apr 07 '17 at 13:12
  • States CAN fail; see Somalia. – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 00:55
  • @mcottle So the rich still get the best care but everyone else gets the lowest common denominator care (it'd have to be if its underfunded, right?). I thought I read that the US typically has better health care than Europe, its only when access to healthcare is factored in that Europe is better. – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 01:03
  • 1
    @Andy my understanding is that the US gets access to expensive unproven treatments which makes it look better. NHS is underfunded but that just means queues for non essential procedures. If you want, you pay to jump the queue. – mcottle Apr 08 '17 at 01:13
  • @mcottle Its very difficult to get acess to unproven treatments, since they likely have not been approved by the FDA. Additionally, insurances companies also don't want to pay for such treatments. That is the same as in the UK as I understand; a coworker (a UK citizen) said that typically the NHS won't pay a second time if your cancer comes out of remission b/c the chance of successfully treating the cancer again is low. People here don't like insurance companies when they try that, but by necessity it needs to be done to keep costs somewhat under control (which is why the NHS does it). – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 01:20
  • 1
    @Andy you mean "Death Panels" the big furphy the opposition brought up to try and stop Romneycare going national. The thing you already have in other words. – mcottle Apr 08 '17 at 01:41
  • @mcottle Basically ya, but I purposefully tried to avoid that loaded term, because making such decisions IS necessary and prudent, if unpleasant. Although insurance companies may be more willing to pay even if chances are slimmer, as I know that there are cases of people receiving treatment for cancer which has come out of remission. – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 01:53
  • Another aspect of this is that those of us who probably will need much less than the average amount of health care due to lifestyle factors (exercise, non-smoking, not obese, &c) will pay as much (if not more due to typically higher incomes), than people whose lifestyles make them a much higher risk. – jamesqf Apr 08 '17 at 04:17
  • 2
    @jameqf In the US, uninsured people have virtually no access to preventive care. They wait until something gets so bad it has to be treated in the ER, and this drives up the eventual cost.

    In the UK, NHS doctors are reluctant to prescribe treatment for conditions that are self-induced, such as obesity, until ever effort has been made to stop the self-abuse. Individual physicians are trusted to make moral judgements.

     – Philip Roe Apr 09 '17 at 17:02
  • 2
    @Andy "only when access to healthcare is factored in that Europe is better" = that's a pretty major "only". –  Apr 14 '17 at 18:10
  • @blip It's also debatable as to whether it should be factored in. Ultimately the problem with socialized healthcare (or really, anything) is that it results in a race to the bottom. The question is whether its better to have everyone live the same level of misery, or allow a system where most are fairly happy, even if it means that some are more miserable than with a socialized system. The other part of the equation is that the USA has spent a lot of money to defend Europe, which has freed them from a sizable portion of spending on their own defense... which makes it easier to reroute to HC – Andy Apr 15 '17 at 00:06
  • 1
    In terms of measuring the overall quality of health for a nation's population it has to be factored in--that's what you are measuring. As for the military and Europe...that's irrelevant as by all measures their per-capita health care spending in those countries is less than our current for-profit system. –  Apr 15 '17 at 01:36
  • @Andy ... or to allow a system where some are positively ecstatic, even if it means most are very miserable. – Reasonably Against Genocide Feb 07 '23 at 17:08
6

Let's dissect it a little bit.

A state is a an organized political community living under a single system of government. (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 9th ed., 1995)

As such, it is up to people living in such community - some, or most, to decide what the government and state is responsible for. It case of a despotism, it could be up to a single person. In democracy, it is a communal decision, whether direct, or not.

I think some people prefer a state not to provide these things, but I don't understand why.

Depending on who and how decides what state obligations are to its people, reasons not to provide basic necessities will vary. A despot might believe in survival of the fittest. In a plutocracy, wealthy might see poor and malnourished as not a threat to their rule, thus not a problem they should spend their current or potential wealth on. Even in direct democracy, majority of people might develop an ideology, where providing basic necessities unconditionally by taxing a broader community is counter-productive to the goals of the community as a whole. The number of reasons is probably indefinite. How many of them will stand up to a check against humanistic principles we seem to have agreed upon, be it in context of UN decisions or via cultural exchange, is another story.

One possible "humanistic" and "Keynesian" solution could be e.g. that any member of the community can receive a loan to cover basic necessities, with appropriate limitations against abuse and with a fair annual rate. Obviously, community will or should also incentivize paying out these loans and dis-incentivize bankruptcy. State, as an issuer of a currency, could underwrite such loans to some extend, making it less Keynesian, but more realistic. The reasoning behind it is the same as why you would provide a loan to a friend in need vs. a money gift. However, it is not a widely adopted system, and the reasons are quite interesting to explore, but go beyond this topic.

In other societies, instead of doing it purely monetarily, it can be a part of religious or spiritual duties. Whoever is considered a "decent person" has to help build or maintain a local temple that in part can be inhabited by people in need and has to cook or bring food to them from time to time. To various extents, this is what really happened in various societies historically, helping society to survive under the harshest despots and worst economic collapses.

Alex Pakka
  • 280
  • 2
  • 7
  • 1
    The issue with your loan example is that most who need help meeting basic necessities do not have the means to pay off the loans. Ex: If one's income 80 units and the cost of "basic" necessities are 100 units, then one will always need another loan and never be able to payoff the first loan. Therefore, the loan scheme described only works if one is guaranteed to get a "real" increase in income (as opposed to an increase driven by inflation). – sharur Apr 10 '17 at 21:32
  • @sharur Obviously, the loans need to be provided with the background of improving productivity or skills. Say, if a person loans 20 units, 40 is offered instead where 20 goes towards training by a local employer or some other similar program. That said, in countries with low unemployment (~5% like Canada and US) a lot of people in dire need of state help have either substance abuse or mental health issues or simply personality traits like "I will not slave for anyone" that make them unemployable. That part can't be fixed by loans and requires broader public involvement. – Alex Pakka Apr 11 '17 at 01:51
  • "In a plutocracy, wealthy might see poor and malnourished as not a threat to their rule, thus not a problem they should spend their current or potential wealth on." - US politics has many OBVIOUS counter-examples to this, Teddy Rosevelt's policies being the most iconic and credited with delaying the popular spread of socialism until early 2000s, by 100 years. – user4012 Feb 06 '23 at 22:59
  • @user4012 Your comment is not correct. US wasn't a plutocracy neither in 1933 nor in 1939. One can argue it had certain plutocratic features or tendencies in one period or another, but describing it as a plutocracy is not widely accepted by historians; the term was and is, however, widely used by communist or fascist regimes' propaganda to describe west as a whole. In the end, poor and malnourished still had a vote and a voice. Also, I provided the quoted sentece as an example of what might happen in theory. Historically, the behavior of plutocrats was more nuanced, of course. – Alex Pakka Feb 07 '23 at 00:02
  • @AlexPakka - wrong Roosevelt :) And thus wrong time period. I agree it was more "had plutocratic features" than "was plutocracy", but the mood/features fit your scenario. – user4012 Feb 07 '23 at 02:07
5

Most states do so to some extent, as it is vastly cheaper to provide these things directly than to provide effective access control.

For water and power, the distribution network spans a wide area, and connecting to it is fairly easy if you know what you are doing, and also pretty much undetectable. It would be possible to add network monitoring stations, but these come with their own cost in initial installation and maintenance, plus they increase the probability of failures.

It is thus cheaper to just give access to everyone regardless of whether they are paying, and then use the judicial system to collect payment. If it is impossible to extract money from an individual at all, it is still cheaper to accept the loss rather than attempt to protect against the loss.

The same thing also applies to medical services. Emergency care cannot be contingent on whether the patient can show that they are able to pay, because in many cases they will be unconscious and not carry ID, so emergency care centers are effectively becoming a very expensive and at the same time ineffective form of primary care for those that cannot afford cheaper options.

This can be optimized further by defining a basic standard of living that will be provided by the state, usually including food, water, electricity, telecommunication and medical services. Most states require that recipients of subsidies actively look for work or explain why they don't, and many states also set the level of service fairly low in order to "create incentives" to seek better employment.

Actual implementations differ. Typically, states with good infrastructure and dense population centers will provide more services unconditionally, as the benefits are more pronounced and the marginal cost is lower. Also, people in population centers are generally more open to central organization, as living in close quarters requires a lot of central planning anyway to be workable.

Another important point is that, if done right, this also keeps wages up because no one would accept a job that pays less than a living wage, so the state will be able to collect significantly more income tax.

Simon Richter
  • 1,083
  • 8
  • 10
  • This answer misses the impact on infrastructure maintenance if the system is underfunded; look towards Detroit for what happens when people don't pay their water bill. – Drunk Cynic Apr 07 '17 at 13:34
  • 5
    @DrunkCynic, cutting off people's water supply due to non-payment wouldn't have saved that infrastructure either, only redistribution of tax money from other parts of the state or country would have worked. Rebuilding will cost a lot more now. – Simon Richter Apr 07 '17 at 15:15
  • @DrunkCynic Cut off a few peoples' water supply for non-payment, and make sure people know, and I'd think that most others would re-consider the priority of paying their water bill. – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 01:08
  • @DrunkCynic Consider that I tagged you by mistake. – Andy Apr 08 '17 at 01:45
  • 1
    @Andy, in general water bills are high on people's priority lists, and they are privileged in court orders for wage garnishment. If they still are not being paid, there is a good chance that there is no money to be re-prioritized toward water. At this point we can either spend lots of resources (technician for shutting off, police for ensuring it stays shut off), or just accept the loss of a few dollars worth of water every month. – Simon Richter Apr 08 '17 at 23:05
  • @SimonRichter i suspect going to court is more expensive than shutting the water off. As far as the costs of shutting off water, those kinds of arguments always amuse me. It costs money to prevent shoplift, muggings, auto thefts. But I suppose its too expensive to hire police, lawyers, judges, jailers etc. and we should just let that all slide too. I mean I suppose it would be cheaper if we just had anarchy wouldn't it? – Andy Apr 09 '17 at 20:22
  • 1
    @Andy, there is a balance between effort invested in security and effort invested in breaking it. For water and food, people will go to great lengths, so you'd need to step up security quite a lot (think checkpoints on the street and huge walls to stop people from getting water from mall bathrooms). So there is no slippery slope here. – Simon Richter Apr 11 '17 at 04:52
4

Libertarians might contend something like:

Do you need men with guns to see to it that no one starves? If you don't need to compel people there are options other than government for filling the role.

In fact while several government programs for food or other vital resources exist in my area there does not appear to be a government program that will certainly get you warm, clean and fed tonight (other than a cell). Several non-governmental organizations do attempt to achieve exactly that goal, and have enough resources that they almost certainly are having a meaningful effect. My area has a reasonable number of people without homes or jobs, but very little death by starvation or exposure.

Other local organizations aim to take care of longer term needs or protect statistically vulnerable demographics. All funded by voluntary contributions.

That last line is often an important point for libertarians.

2

Social Darwinism

According to theory of social darwinism, society is a population which undergoes natural selection. It is an application of 19th century biological ideas to the social and political world. Although usually considered an ugly theory by modern standards, it was an extremely influential and oft-argued perspective in its time.

One application of this theory is that by providing basic necessities, the government would be ensuring that mal-adapted people continue to survive, which is a detriment to society. Why weren't those people capable of thriving in a competetive environment? Perhaps they had physical, psychological, or social disabilities - why would you want to pass those on to future generations? Perhaps they didn't have the skills or education necessary for high-paying jobs. In that case, why would the government want them to have children who are likely to have the same problem?

If you want to read more, Herbert Spencer is one of the best known names in social darwinist theory.

indigochild
  • 23,870
  • 3
  • 84
  • 162
DepressedDaniel
  • 410
  • 2
  • 6
  • 4
    I'm very tempted to call this a straw-man argument absent some evidence. Do you have any evidence that a meaningful amount of people actually hold that as specific reason to oppose such provision? (and very specifically, NOT confused with a different reason which holds that it's unethical to subsidize people-on-the-dole-having-more-kids-while-those-paying-cant-afford-to, which is an argument having nothing to do with natural selection) – user4012 Apr 07 '17 at 20:28
  • 1
    I won't even go into how this stated theory contradicts actual modern evolutionary ideas (including kin selection, epigenetics, etc..) – user4012 Apr 07 '17 at 20:31
  • 3
    @user4012 Hardly straw-man; it's a very old political theory called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism (however it was initially without Darwinist roots; based simply on observation that poor people generally have poor offspring because the offspring do not inherit any property). It was influential enough in its time to result in actual legislation reducing aid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law_Amendment_Act_1834 "relief would only be given in workhouses, and conditions in workhouses would be such as to deter any but the truly destitute from applying for relief". – DepressedDaniel Apr 07 '17 at 22:22
  • 1
    While correct for 18th century, modern (post 1950) maththusianism is NOT mainly about survival of the fittest and definitely NOT about rejecting basic income (since a large portion of pro-basic-income left are actually Malthusian) – user4012 Apr 07 '17 at 22:30
  • 1
    @user4012 There's several different ideas that might be called "Malthusian" - initially Malthus just started with the observation that population growth is exponential; to this was added the idea that poor people reproduce more quickly and dilute their inherited property and finally the idea that aid is counterproductive because it essentially just allows property held to go negative as aid allows poor people to collect "rent" on their mere existence. – DepressedDaniel Apr 07 '17 at 22:35
  • @user4012 did mention in another answer "the double demographic bombs of (1) Well to do spoiled westerners not having enough kids to fund their retirement and (2) people who are on basic income - and thus have the leisure - out-reproducing those who are willing to work by a large margin." which follows a similar sort of theme. – Reasonably Against Genocide Apr 10 '17 at 02:01
  • @immibis - it's similar but different - this is more of memetic rather than genetic issue (e.g. people who don't bother working teach their kids not to bother working) – user4012 Apr 10 '17 at 03:54
  • @user4012 I'm not convinced that makes a meaningful difference. Natural selection applies to traits that are passed down, regardless of how they're passed down – Reasonably Against Genocide Apr 10 '17 at 03:57
  • @immibis - There are two differences: (1) the former is considered somewhat... immoral according to modern majority morals/ethics (although it was in vogue up till 1940s or so all over the world). (2) More importantly, there's no proof that genetics has direct relationship to willingness to work. Social upbringing undubitably does. In the former case, you just don't have a good case for the traits to be passed down in the first place. – user4012 Apr 10 '17 at 04:01
  • @user4012 I mean that it makes no difference to the argument whether someone is incapable of supporting themselves because they are physically/biologically unable to, or because they are psychologically unable to because of their conditioning. – Reasonably Against Genocide Apr 10 '17 at 04:05
  • @immibis - I'm aware of people MAYBE using the second memetic version as a reason to oppose UBI. I'm not even remotely aware of anyone using the first genetic one (and as I stated, if they do, they are scientifically wrong) – user4012 Apr 10 '17 at 04:09
  • @user4012 The first mention of "genetics" was in this comment argument. It was in neither of the answers referenced. You even explicitly mentioned "the Darwinian theory of inheritable traits", not "the Darwinian theory of genetic traits". – Reasonably Against Genocide Apr 10 '17 at 04:31
  • 1
    While this is a valid answer (people used to argue this) I think as an argument it's all but disappeared (thankfully) from modern political discourse. –  Apr 14 '17 at 18:13
  • I edited your question pretty heavily so that it focuses on social darwinism, rather than literal evolution. If this was not what you intended (or you hate my edits), feel free to roll them back. – indigochild Apr 14 '17 at 18:42
  • 1
    @indigochild I don't disagree I think your version is definitely better researched. Would be nice if SE would allow the answer author to be updated in such cases :) – DepressedDaniel Apr 15 '17 at 23:39
2

Because it's the default choice.

As soon as you start discussing how to provide free water and food and housing, the issue very quickly becomes very complex. What kind of water? Can the state be sued if the quality of the water isn't right? How big should the houses be? Can we provide houses for the poor outside the city walls? What kind of food is justified for the poor? How do we discourage people from wasting resources if they are free? Should we pay poor people a TV? Should poor people be allowed to own a car?

In fact, in the developed world it seems to be the standard that free water, food, housing, and medical aid is indeed provided by most states. But to what standard and by which means differs considerably by state.

And even developing countries have countless checks and balances that decrease the number of people that would otherwise freeze and starve to a slightly more acceptable level.

Peter
  • 13,516
  • 7
  • 38
  • 55
1

Some cynical theories by a few skeptics of the status quo:

  1. You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs. --George Carlin

    Scarcity and poverty creates fear, which goads workers to pay taxes to support a state that perpetuates the cycle. Providing those necessities would remove that fear, and break the system.

  2. Al Capp's Shmoo stories are premised on the notion that if those basic necessities were already provided for naturally, then such a fear-based system of governance would deliberately ruin those provisions to preserve the institution of scarcity itself:

    In a sequence beginning in late August 1948, Li'l Abner discovers the shmoos when he ventures into the forbidden "Valley of the Shmoon" following the mysterious and musical sound they make (from which their name derives). Abner is thrown off a cliff and into the valley below by a primitive "large gal" (as he addresses her), whose job is to guard the valley. (This character is never seen again.) There, against the frantic protestations of a naked, heavily bearded old man who shepherds the shmoos, Abner befriends the strange and charming creatures. "Shmoos," the old man warns, "is the greatest menace to hoomanity th' world has evah known!" "Thass becuz they is so bad, huh?" asks Li'l Abner. "No, stupid", answers the man — and then encapsulates one of life's profound paradoxes: "It's because they's so good!!"

    Having discovered their value ("Wif these around, nobody won't nevah havta work no more!!"), Abner leads the shmoos out of the valley — where they become a sensation in Dogpatch and, quickly, the rest of the world. Captains of industry such as J. Roaringham Fatback, the "Pork King", become alarmed as sales of nearly all products decline, and in a series of images reminiscent of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the "Shmoo Crisis" unfolds. On Fatback's orders, a corrupt exterminator orders out "Shmooicide Squads" to wipe out the shmoos with a variety of firearms, which is depicted in a macabre and comically graphic sequence, with a tearful Li'l Abner misguidedly saluting the supposed "authority" of the extermination squads.

    After the shmoos have been eliminated, Dogpatch's extortionate grocer Soft-Hearted John is seen cackling as he displays his wares—rotting meat and produce: "Now them mizzuble starvin' rats has t'come crawlin t'me fo' the necessities o' life!! They complained 'bout mah prices befo'!! Wait'll they see th' new ones!!" The exterminator congratulates him.

agc
  • 12,881
  • 4
  • 36
  • 73
  • Be nice to other users, please. – indigochild Apr 14 '17 at 18:31
  • 1
    @indigochild, Good advice. Please clarify which words or statements in this answer fail to accord with those standards. – agc Apr 14 '17 at 18:59
  • "Most of the answers here seem to be by apologists for the status quo who dread the idea of providential states. In contrast, a few mockers of the status quo:" - You can frame your answer without this kind of attack. – indigochild Apr 14 '17 at 19:04
-1

"What are the major arguments for why the state should not provide for the basic necessities of its people? I am thinking of things like water, food, and housing as "basic necessities"."

I have a machine that makes a machine that provides clean water, basic nutrition, and shelter (bed, heat, a/c, and shade). Both machines require air (water is taken from the air), land, and sun to function.

There are two reasons not to give a machine to every human born.

First, there's over population. This is easily fixed. In addition to the basic necessities you'll need to teach people what happen's to a population that doesn't control it's birth rate.

Second, it would be difficult to convince people to do something unpleasant or demeaning. You wouldn't be able to hire someone to clean your toilet. This would be the end of the world for many people.

slOOP
  • 11
  • Reason #1 should be labeled "Malthusianism". Reason #2 is imho overly dramatic as stated ("the end of the world") - western society already learned to overpay sanitation workers as they are vital to not drowning in garbage; and basic tasks like cleaning a toilet is easily done by the user without having to hire someone at exorbitant price. – user4012 Apr 09 '17 at 18:23
  • Technically I'd say neo-malthusianism. If you don't agreed with the idea that uncheck population growth will out pace resources I'll show the pile of money next to the kids I don't have. I think the statement "It's so hard to find good help these days" sums up my second point. Sure cleaning a toilet is easy but if you can make someone else do it without have to ask nicely cleaning a toilet is awful. How do you make sure good help is easy to find? – slOOP Apr 11 '17 at 00:48
  • @user4012, Re "drowning in garbage": manufacturers of mass produced disposables subvert the fourth estate with misleading advertising that makes the idea of torrents of disposable objects seem normal, and a charmed public therefore permits them to externalize the the heavy societal costs of their output. – agc Apr 14 '17 at 18:18
  • Conclusion #2 doesn't follow from your argument. Why would people in this situation not be willing to do unpleasant tasks? Also, why does the government care about either of these two reasons? – indigochild Apr 14 '17 at 18:22
-1

As you can see most of the problems come down to money (currency). If we did not use a currency based ecomonic model, then we could probably come up with a system where people just take as they choose.

If you removed money from your daily routine would it really change anything?

  • Go to work
  • Get things from store
  • Pump gas

None of these things require money to happen, but we use it to implement limitations. How much money you have limits how much you can get. More money only means your limit is higher then someone with less money.

Money gets its value from scarcity. If everyone had a $500 bill, the $500 bill would have no value. But if everyone has a $1 bill, then a $500 bill is suddenly worth a lot. The bill didn't change, only its scarcity changed.

This is why socialism or "free stuff" as we call it in America doesn't pan out. Of course everyone wants free stuff, but the entire world is tied to a system of currency. So by giving stuff to everyone it devalues the worth and then it becomes hard to justify creating it. The countries that appear to be wealthy have exported their poverty to somewhere else. The poverty exists SOMEWHERE.

If you give everyone money in order to compensate for lack of money, then why have money at all? This is why you can't win the war on poverty or hunger.

Money gets value from scarcity, which means money creates poverty. Wealth is only a by product of money. The system itself relies on many more people being poor then rich. By pushing more money to a small group of people, money gets more value. "Middle class" is an equilibrium, which negates the purpose of money.

The concepts of "free stuff" and money are simply at odds with each other. You can't have both. You can have some bastardized middle ground where it kinda sorta works, and that is what the world has been doing for a long time. The constant ebb and flow of wealth and poverty keep the system moving along. But make no mistake, there will ALWAYS be proportionately more suffering under this system.

Westrock
  • 9
  • 4
    If there's no money involved, getting things from a store requires either (1) barter (no different than money, just incredibly impossible to scale to modern economy given different types of goods/supply); (2) Forcibly taking, using either your own, or the state's brute force, as backing; or (3) Theft. Absent #4 (store owner gives it up as charity, which isn't preordained so doesn't count). #2 is slavery (you're forcing someone to work for free to get you the stuff); #3 devolves to #2 the moment the owner tries to prevent the theft. – user4012 Apr 10 '17 at 04:06
  • 3
    Please take a basic economy theory course to understand why this answer is nonsense. Money itself isn't a problem; all it does is represent limited resources. – Andy Apr 15 '17 at 00:15
  • @user4012 You are still trying to give an item a value. Barter, theft, steal, whatever. This is how you look at it because we can't accept the idea that goods could just freely flow. We are ingrained with the idea everything has to have a value. – Westrock Apr 19 '17 at 13:08
  • @Westrock - "freeely" implies you either force whoever had the goods to give them to you; or convince them. The former is #2/3 in my comment; the latter is #1 (or charity, but you're unlikely to charity-get 100% of the goods you want in life) – user4012 Apr 19 '17 at 18:55
  • @user4012, Re #2 (coercion, slavery): by the same argument a public drinking fountain or well (both store and freely dispense a necessary consumable) would be coercion and slavery. – agc Sep 29 '17 at 20:57
  • @agc - What if I don't feel like building a public well or a fountain on my free time? They don't just spring into existance by magic, someone builds them. Unless you convince me to voluntarily do so (or convince me to voluntarily pay to have other people do so), yes, you engaged in coercion to either get money or labour from me, to get your fountain/well built. Additionally, in case of fountains, frequently someone pays for the water, at least in most Western countries' developed areas. Unless they donated the water or money to pay for it voluntarily, you are coercing them too – user4012 Sep 30 '17 at 11:58
  • @user4012, Those three drinking fountain production methods of "magic", "volunteerism", and "coercion", are but three of the many more non-coercive methods possible. Or perhaps also those usages are more broadly inclusive than the common usage. Even allowing the broadest usages, it's puzzling... an heirless man owns a drinking fountain but dies intestate, the fountain becomes public. Yet our man did not die intestate by magic, did not volunteer, nor was coerced. – agc Sep 30 '17 at 15:56
  • 1
    @agc - Actually, if heir-less man didn't will his fountain to someone, that's equivalent to volunteerism in my view; as he chose not to give it to whoever he could. But yes, let's call the rather unlikely rare case a fourth production method, just to be methodical. But ask yourself, what's the likely proportion of drinking fountains produced by first 3 methods vs 4th? (i'm pretty sure very few people die with their estate going to public use, and even fewer own water fountains). – user4012 Sep 30 '17 at 18:43
  • @user4012, Not one non-coercive method, many; of those just one example for your puzzlement. Intestacy occurs quite a lot with copyright, authors may be heirless, and the corporations that owned their works sometimes vanish with a whimper. Some movie examples. – agc Sep 30 '17 at 20:44
  • @user4012 or (5) the stuff was yours to begin with and never belonged to the store owner. I'm not saying that is the case, but it's certainly a possibility, and the fact you didn't think of it is quite telling. Open your mind a little. – Reasonably Against Genocide Feb 07 '23 at 17:12
  • @user4012 you think many people like being stuck in useless office jobs instead of building useful fountains? – Reasonably Against Genocide Feb 07 '23 at 17:13
-1

The modern, industrialized state has a moral obligation to pay for basic necessities.

Failing to provide the necessities to a segment of your population is a punishment for them not producing sufficient goods or services to deserve the level of compensation to survive.

In the United States, the notion of scarcity of resources is poppycock.

The problem with this form of punishment is that wages are not set by the value of work produced, it's set by the balance/imbalance of control of the employers. When the government tilts the balance of control away from labour, it depresses wages, and pushes people below living wages.

Other people who the government deems undesirable (drug users, petty thieves) are barred from working at jobs paying living wages by systems that charge them punitive fines that they can't pay back, and stigmatizing them with criminal records.

Update:

I don't think you can answer the question without addressing the other side of the question, and remove the basically eugenicist excuses.

How much would it cost to lift Americans now in poverty to the poverty line? Currently, there are about 45 million in poverty. I'll use wikipedia numbers, assuming an average of 2 persons per family unit in poverty, we would need to supplement those households to an income of $16,000. Considering that many are currently on on food stamps, working low paying jobs and other income assistance, I'll assume that on average they need 50% supplement, or $8,000 per year. $8,000 x 45 million = $360 billion per year. The US GDP is $18 trillion dollars. So that's 2% of GDP. The recipients of this assistance would spend every dollar, generating follow-on effects for the economy as a whole. As a comparison, we pay 15% of GDP per year on healthcare, for a system that everyone says is full of inefficiencies.

When you consciously don't take action to prevent the poverty of our fellow man in a country we claim to be the richest on the earth, that's the same as inflicting punishment.

Dale Johnson
  • 115
  • 1
  • This answer is receiving down votes. I'm no mind reader, but here are a couple suggestions: when you make claims, back them up (for example - show me that there is no scarcity of resources in the United States). Second, separate moral claims from empirical ones. What's the connection between scarcity and the moral obligation to provide help? – indigochild Apr 14 '17 at 18:19
  • I have't voted for or against this answer, but it doesn't answer the present question, instead it answers the opposite question. – agc Apr 14 '17 at 18:24
  • What moral obligation, based off which subjective set of morals? Provide justification for your imbalance of control conjecture. People with criminal records have demonstrated a higher risk of being detrimental to society. – Drunk Cynic Apr 14 '17 at 18:40
  • @DrunkCynic, Re "subjective set of morals": declaring all sets of morals to be subjective seems almost as absolutist as supposing that only what is legal is moral and vice-versa. – agc Apr 16 '17 at 01:16
  • @agc To the contrary; what is legal is not necessarily moral. Morals are inherently subjective. – Drunk Cynic Apr 16 '17 at 05:37
  • @DrunkCynic, Re "Morals are inherently subjective": if "morals" there means "all morals", that itself would be an absolute (or non-subjective) statement about morals, (i.e. it is a statement that may only be made by a moral absolutist). – agc Apr 16 '17 at 16:50