What Should Be Done?

by Liberty and Power

Read this story about food and the"underclass" in today's Britain. Are the people's lives it describes the consequence of a dependency culture funded by state handouts? Are they a function of poor education? Of dysfunctional families? Of a lack of money? Do libertarians have insights to offer that thoughtful individuals in the wider world would welcome but which are consistent with the paradigm of individual liberty, private property, and free markets?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Lee C Waaks - 1/2/2009

Thanks for your comment Steve. You write: "One problem (not the only one, no doubt) is that this woman has spent her life subsisting on government handouts. The end result is a kitchen full of candy bars." That implies to me that the welfare state creates a deus machina of "bad" choices/behaviors. I disgree. I don't think the information or opportunities one needs to escape poverty is is scarcity. Choosing welfare checks over employment or candy bars over broccoli might simply be a matter of preference. I make "bad" choice all the time - finacially and health-wise. As to the the reasons why, I can assure they have nothing to do with poverty or class.

Lee C Waaks - 1/2/2009

It's true that the article did not reference poverty as a social disease; I wrote that the "familiar theme of poverty as social disease" was espoused in the article, implying that class stratification and poverty as social disease are nearly the same. I should have been more precise but I think my points still carry weight either way. Are not both concepts excuses for bad behavior that ignore the intelligence and character of the individuals? If we wish to supply excuses for the underclass beyond blaming the welfare state for fostering dependency (I recall an essay by Bryan Caplan that explodes this myth), we could simply blame evolution/human nature. After all, it's no one's fault that he/she has low intelligence. That's certainly the plea I would use for myself. :-) I also recall that Charles Murray writes in the second introduction in _The Bell Curve_ that social-democrats should be more willing to accept his theories once they see that there might be greater justification to use the state to help the poor once society accepts that no one can be held responsible for low intelligence/poor impulse control if they are hard-wired that way.

Steve Kowalski - 12/31/2008

Apparently, its a class disease. The points made by Lee could equally apply to this analysis. One problem (not the only one, no doubt) is that this woman has spent her life subsisting on government handouts. The end result is a kitchen full of candy bars. If she'd been obliged to go out and fund her spending from some form of effort, she might have picked up some other enterprising skills along the way. All this story does is make me even more resentful that my efforts are wasted on support of such idiots.

Mark Brady - 12/31/2008

Nowhere does the article state that poverty is a social disease. Where is the hard evidence that the author conceives of poverty that way?

Lee C Waaks - 12/31/2008

This article has the familiar theme of poverty - and all its ramifications - as social disease. The poor are never - or almost never -responsible for their plight; after all, poor people would not voluntarily choose to contract a "disease." The author writes as if poverty is like a cultural vortex that traps the poor in a vicious cycle. The cultural milieu of poverty causes the poor to make bad choices regarding diet, education, sex, etc. All of these bad choices spawn negative consequences, thereby reinforcing the trap of poverty. Yet, if this were true very few people would ever have escaped from poverty but millions have. At the company where I work it is easy to advance from the bottom rung. Character and intelligence matter and many poor people are lacking. I don't know of a libertarian program to boost intelligence.