🚀 go-pugleaf

probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>>>>There is plenty of room for argument on how
>>>>a good society may be achieved or operated, and on what makes one or
>>>>another society appealing, but not on the basic criteria according
>>>>to which a society may be judged just.
>>>
>>>it seems like the basic criteria are non-negotiable. a pity, as the u.s.
>>>disintergrates internally, that some beliefs are put above the facts of
>>>human degradation and alienation.
>>
>>You are assuming here that the human degradation and alienation in the U.S.
>>*is* a result of a set of (I assume) right-wing beliefs that have been coldly
>>applied.  In fact, social spending per capita in the U.S. is very close to
>>that of the other Western countries (Charles Murray, "Losing Ground").  
>
>well, i think it depends what is included in the definition of "social
>spending".

Social spending includes all "transfers" from one set of individuals to
another - welfare and the like.

>does "very close" mean a little less, or a little more, by the way?

A little less.  Overall a lower percentage of the GNP of the U.S. is consumed
by the government than is consumed in any other Western country.

>>Maybe
>>the Americans have more of a problem because they had a higher percentage of
>>vulnerable people (due to historic mistakes they made) when massive social
>>spending was initiated in the 60's by the Western countries.  Conceivably
>>then, as this spending has eroded the moral standards of people and provided
>>them with extensive disincentives, the Americans have simply produced more
>>wasted people from their originally larger base.
>
>where would this higher percentage of "vulnerable people" have come from?
>what percentages are you referring to, and how is this group defined?

The majority were Blacks whose ancestors had been subjected to slavery -
they constitute 10% of the American population.

>how does "social spending" - undefined - erode the moral standards of people.

Where social spending is "transfers", providing people with money they did
not earn, it erodes their moral standards by inducing them to no longer
attempt to earn money.  Now certainly I will agree that there are cases where
people simply require such transfers to survive - no fault of their own - but
the problem is that "big government" social spending is typically provided
with "no questions asked".  When cash is available under such conditions (few
*conditions* at all), people are drawn away from more responsible ways of
conducting their life.

Before the hey-day of "big government" social spending, those in need were
aided by local organizations (the Baptist Church was a significant player in
American Black communities) and local philanthropists.  These people knew the
beneficiaries personally, and could tailor their aid appropriately.  They
would not, for example, give a drunk a bunch of cash; they would give him
food and a place to stay.  They would likely however, give a single mother
cash (and undoubtedly more of it).  It seems to me that, when you have people
willing to act as local providers of aid (and there seems to be no shortage
of them), that this is obviously the way to go.  "Big government" social
spending is an attempt to curve-fit with a single parabola.  It is
inefficient, misdirected, and really only keeps bureaucrats employed.

>>Throughout the Western world, "big government" social spending has been the
>>norm for three decades now, and things have only become much worse during
>>that time.  Maybe alternative ideas should be considered?
>
>throughout the same world, this spending has decreased in real terms in
>most countries for the last decade. in the last decade, the gap between
>haves and have-nots has visibly widened in all the countries concerned. a
>change would imply that "social spending" stop decreasing in real terms, or
>even increase. i would like to see this alternative seriously considered.

This spending decrease is irrelevant.  The amounts of money we are talking
about, whether they are considered before or after the decrease of the last
decade, are vastly larger than they were before the 60's.  This is my point:
since "big government" spending began, whatever the fluctuations in the real
value of the money spent, things in disadvantaged communities have steadily
gotten worse.  Before "big government" spending began in the U.S. (under
L.B.J.), the Black communities were steadily improving.

Incidentally, as government spending decreased through the 80's in the U.S.,
philanthropy increased significantly.

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca