Column on Rights and Welfare

Property Rights and the Welfare State

Tibor R. Machan

Is it reasonable to always demand respect for property rights? This is the
question raised by some critics of the (Lockean) idea that human beings
have the unalienable right to their lives, liberty and property which may
never be subject to violation within the legal system of a free society.
Some claim that it is unreasonable to demand this of those in dire
straits, the extremely poor, who would only manage to survive and flourish
by violating these rights of the well off. Thus, the argue, the welfare
state in which laws are passed that permit taxing the well to do so as to
provide for those in dire straits is just.

Of course, most of the welfare obtained via taxation doesn’t serve to
benefit people in dire straits but owners of sizable business firms that
seek support in times of economic downturns. The welfare state tends to
support those afraid of competition from foreign industry and farmers, not
unwed mothers who cannot find work by which to support their children. But
some of the recipients of welfare are in dire straits, through no evident
fault of their own. And, the argument goes, it would be unreasonable to
demand of such people to refrain from taking from the well to do what they
need.

As I have argued, since some of what those in dire need require would be
the result of the labors of other people, this implies that it is
unreasonable to demand of those in dire straits to abstain from coercing
productive people to labor for them, to part with what they have produced,
to even give up parts of their bodies if they can do without those parts.
But that cannot be right—how could it be unreasonable to demand that
people not be forced to labor for others? Does not forced labor violate
the rights of those who are its victim? If one also adds that those in
dire straits may very well have ample opportunity to obtain what they need
by offering to work for the well off, to engage in innovation, enterprise
and other efforts that can peacefully secure for them what they need to
survive and flourish, the case that they may coerce others to work for
them loses even the emotional appeal that at first inspection it possesses.

The most that this kind of reasoning advanced in support of the welfare
state establishes, then, is that those who are well off ought to be
generous toward the very needy, that in emergencies those who can should
lend a hand to those who are genuinely helpless. Indeed, that is what the
virtue of generosity amounts to: it inclines decent persons, ones of good
character, to come to the aid of deserving but badly off people. That
would be the civilized solution rather than one that resorts of coercive
means and treats those well off as unwilling tools or instruments of the
badly off, not as people who are ends in themselves and must give their
consent whenever they are utilized by others, even the very hard up among
us.

There can, of course, be circumstances so unruly, so desperate and
catastrophic that reasonable conduct is impossible, something that Locke
himself realized, referring to them as ones where “politics in not
possible.” In such cases the world is so topsy-turvy that the principles
of civilized behavior cannot reasonably be expected to be followed.

What does not follow from this is that the legal system of a society must
be adjusted so as to accommodate emergencies, to require of well enough
off citizens to be constant Good Samaritans. As the saying goes, “Hard
cases make bad law.” One does not demand that a system of law change
because of certain dire circumstances, especially since it would imply
that some people get to place the rest under legal obligation to perform
service that should come from good will, not at the point of a gun.

In a recent issue of Science News, the magazines that reports much of the
path breaking scientific research around the globe, one short item noted
that the degree of charity and philanthropy in societies with substantial
free, unregimented markets is much greater than in top down planned
societies. So not only it coercive welfare unjust but it seems to
discourage good will among citizens. And it is mostly such good will that
takes the best care of the truly needy among us!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s