Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu From: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Welfare, crime, business, unions, and freedom (long) Message-ID: <12226921465.40.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 30-Jul-86 20:05:35 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12226921465.40.MCGREW Posted: Wed Jul 30 20:05:35 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jul-86 17:53:09 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 335 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 23:53:00 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Welfare, crime, business, unions, and freedom (long) To: ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU From: Steve Walton On the subjects of welfare and criminals: (1) I doubt you are qualified to say what persons are capable of doing while under the influence of drugs. Wrong. I have been around users of drugs. They know what drugs do to them. If they choose to take them anyway, they have to accept the consequences of their actions while on drugs, whether they are able to control those actions or not. If I choose to drop bricks from a tall building, I can't control just where they fall. Perhaps I wanted one to land on my property but a stray gust of wind causes it to demolish a car and cause an accident. Am I responsible for that? I would say that I am. Even though I could not control where the brick would land, I am the one who dropped it off the building. Suppose it did land on my property. Would the police then have reason to arrest me? I would say that they would not. There is nothing evil about dropping bricks. The crime is wrecking cars and causing accidents. Similarly, there is nothing evil about taking drugs. The crimes are robbing, raping, and killing people. Being on drugs should neither excuse a crime nor constitute a new crime in its own right. (2) If criminals make a rational decision to commit crimes, I didn't say it was a RATIONAL decision, I said it was a VOLUNTARY decision. Not the same thing at all. RATIONAL means that the criminal and his neighbors would be better off if they all went around mugging eachother. I don't believe this would be the case. VOLUNTARY means that the criminal commits a crime because he freely chooses to do so. Or because he freely chooses to take drugs that he knows will make it impossible to control his behavior. The liberal theory seems to be that crime is caused by economic conditions and has nothing to do with anyone's free will, except maybe that of the taxpayers. I do not believe anyone is compelled to commit crimes. People do it by choice. Most people living in the worst slums never commit any crimes. Many people who are very well off, who have everything going for them, throw it all away to take up a life of crime. Ask any probation or parole officer, or any psychologist, psychiatrist, or judge. They will tell you that nobody can predict whether an individual will commit crimes or not. Not by analyzing his socioeconomic status to ten decimal places. Not by studying his environment, not by interviewing his relatives and neighbors, not by analyzing his urine. they do so because it is their perception that crimes are their best route to improve their lot. They may be right. If they don't get caught. I believe I could probably steal hundreds of thousands from banks via computer without a chance of being caught. But I don't do it. The great majority of people will NOT rip off others, even if there is no way they could ever be suspected of the crime. Our system is largely built on trust. If a large percentage of people started writing bad checks, spoofing EFT systems, stealing parked cars, taking whatever they could whenever they didn't think they would be caught, life would become much less pleasant. The crime problem is caused by a tiny minority who just don't give a damn about anyone else. It has nothing to do with poverty. Do you think the nuts who put cyanide in tylenol are below the poverty line? Crime is the choice of the criminals. To prevent it, we have to make it not worth their while. We have to show our repugnance for what they do. Saying that crime isn't really their fault but society's, or that they are ill and in need of treatment, has precisely the opposite effect. Having hundreds of thousands of laws, most of which few people have ever heard of, and many of which criminalize perfectly innocent (even if unsavory or unwise) behaviors, also sends the wrong message. By crime, I am talking about murder, robbery, burglary, rape, theft, espionage, sabotage, vandalism, fraud, arson, assault, and extortion. I am not talking about prostitution, gambling, selling or using drugs, pornography, or homosexuality. Those should not be crimes. Some of them may lead to crime but that doesn't mean they should be crimes, anymore than it means that a serious crime can be excused by one of these non-crimes. Judges routinely show leniency to people who have been using drugs or alcohol. Some rapists try blame their crimes on pornography. Sadly, the Meese report may serve to justify their behavior to themselves, and possibly to judges. To the extent that societal problems cause racial discrimination, poor public schools and police protection in ghettos, and other such conditions, society is responsible for some crime. What does it mean for society to be responsible? Do we lock it in jail? If by society you mean government, perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea. :-) (3) "being PAYED [sic] to have children". The amount of extra welfare money which is received for another child is small compared to what it actually costs to raise the child. That depends on how good a job of raising the child you do. I am not saying the welfare families are getting rich. I am just saying that they live comfortably enough that they don't see the need to change. Why work if you can watch TV all day? Especially if the only job you can get at the moment is one that pays hardly any better than welfare. And you lose your free medical insurance for yourself and your kids, your food stamps, and possibly your subsidized housing. Since you would have to pay for day care for the kids while you are at work, it obviously makes much more sense to just sit back and watch TV. Note that these people aren't just getting AFDC. They get food stamps, subsidized transportation, free medical care, and subsidized housing. The total value of this is considerably greater than many working people can afford. Once again, we are lucky that so many people are fundamentally honest. Practically anyone with children who is in the bottom 20 or 30 percent economically would do better if they quit their job and lived off government assistance of various forms. On second thought, perhaps it would be better if they DID do so. Then things would HAVE to change. Did you watch the NBC special on the black family which Bill Moyers did? The problem is quite a bit more complex than this. No, I don't have a TV. And if I did, I wouldn't have time to watch it. I know the problems are complex. I don't see how complexity justifies government subsidies. Quite the opposite. The more complex someone's life and problems are, the less likely it is that anyone but themselves would completely understand them. I don't see it as a black problem. Most blacks are not on welfare. Many whites are on welfare. Race really has little to do with it. It's mostly an attitude problem. (3) "Watch TV all day and count the welfare checks" is a wonderful buzz phrase, calculated to produce an emotional response, but it has no grounds in fact. Wrong. I *KNOW* people like this. Most welfare money goes to people who are the victims of circumstance, and most of them would take a job if they could get one. Too many people see themselves as victims of circumstance, or of forces beyond their control. Trapped in a world they never made. Wallowing in self pity. I could get into that. You think my life has been all roses? Closer to all thorns. Seven years ago I was released from prison after serving a sentence for burglary. (I was innocent.) I had 25 dollars to my name. And a bus ticket and a new suit. If that doesn't make me a victim of circumstance I don't know what does. If I had then turned to a life of crime and moaned about how an ex-con doesn't have a chance, I am sure I would have your symapthy. You would eagerly agree that I was blameless and that it was all society's fault. But I didn't do that. I worked long and hard and now work for a high technology company. I'm not wealthy, but I do manage to save over a third of my after tax salary. Unfortunately, none of the jobs are in neighborhoods they can afford to commute or move to. Wrong. There are plenty of jobs in the inner city. Small apartments are no more expensive in the suburbs than in the city. Bus and/or subway service connects the two, at a cost that even people making minimum wage can afford. And people can live on as little as $200 a month if they are willing to share apartments and eat cheap foods. Also, there are a lot of farm jobs going begging. People just don't want to get their hands dirty. I am just not aware of anyone who HAS TO commit crimes to survive or to feed their children. Not in this country. Stealing hubcaps may be more lucrative and more exciting than washing dishes. Checking the obituary pages and burglarizing a family's house while they are at a funeral may be a faster route to a large bank account than picking vegetables. Does this justify crime? Is it the fault of government for not making the minimum wage and the welfare minumum as much as someone could get by spending his time tunneling into bank vaults? On the subject of business: ... The employer-employee relationship is NOT symmetrical in the absence of unions, because employers can deprive an employee of his/her livelihood, but an individual employee cannot do the same to an employer. Wrong again. An employer's only power is the power to fire the employee. This does not deprive the employee of his livelihood, since he is free to find another employer or to become self-employed. Similarly, an employee's only power over his employer is (or rather should be) the power to resign. This does not deprive the employer of HIS livelihood, since the employer is free to find another employee to replace the one who resigned, or to work without employees. It is perfectly symmetrical. It can be a considerable inconvenience losing a job. Being fired can be as traumatic as being divorced. Saying 'one can always find another job' may sound as callous as saying 'one can always find another spouse'. But it is true. And if one can't, why should taxpayers be required to pay? Nobody seems to object to divorce laws becoming more symmetrical, so why object to employment laws becoming more symmetrical? For an employer to lose an employee can be traumatic as well. Major corporations have gone out of business simply because one or more employees left when they were badly needed. What people don't seem to understand about laws that make it difficult for people to be fired is that they make it equally difficult for people to be hired. Much of the difficulty that people do have in finding jobs is simply the flip side of the minimum wage laws and the many other laws that make life difficult for employers. When workers attempted to exercise their right to freely assemble by forming unions, the government shot them. I hope you don't think I support that! Nobody should ever be shot at unless they shoot first. The fact that members of labor unions got a raw deal many years ago does not imply that members of labor unions should now have any special rights (i.e. rights not posessed by non-members). I doubt that any of the current members were around when these shootings occured anyway. Your ideal libertarian free market only exists in cases where it is easy to enter a new line of work if profits (wages) cease in an old one. Not only where it is EASY, but where it is POSSIBLE. There is no guarantee that life must be easy. Most of the people who are newly out of work, i.e. steel mill and automobile industry employees, were making a very respectable salary for many years. If such a person fails to invest much of his money, but instead spends it on a grand lifestyle, I have very little sympathy when the bottom falls out of the market. For many years they were making money way out of line with the value of the products and services they were producing, thanks to extortion by the labor unions. Their employers shrugged their shoulders and passed the excess costs on to the consumers. The result was greatly overpriced cars, steel, and buildings. Why should the employers bother to fight it? They would probably get their facilities torched by union goons. They aren't losing any business, since their competitors have the same problems. And nobody is actually harmed. Except the consumers, who are paying way too much for cars, etc. The foreign competition started easily underselling the unionized firms. The unions flex their muscles and cry foul. "Dumping" they say. Nobody can possibly be making a profit selling cars or steel for that little, they argue. They never explain why any company or country would be throwing money away by selling goods for less than it cost to make them, or why it wouldn't be a net benefit to people in the US to buy the inexpensive goods whether the goods were being dumped or not. It made me really angry when I heard about the 'voluntary' import quotas. Just when it looked like the average person would soon be able to afford a new car it all fell apart. Detroit is still firmly in charge. I just hope the union members think about the lives that are destroyed by accidents caused by obsolete vehicles. I just hope they realize that this political pressure game is no game, but that there are innocent people being badly hurt. I feel even less sympathy for the oil barons of the southwest, who are now feeling the bad effects of the oil price decline. They had little mercy for the rest of us when oil prices were skyrocketing. Now they want government subsidies, handout, guaranteed price floors. It IS possible to enter a new line of work. I am not saying it is always easy. Sometimes it even requires learning new skills. How much easier to have the government or the consumers simply subsidize your continuing to perform your old job to nobody's benefit. Often, taking a new job means making a lot less money, and losing your house with the $2000 mortgage payments and your shiny new BMW. So what? Should those of us who have never lived like royalty suffer even higher taxes to keep this guy in his house? It is a little known fact, but most government transfer payments (AFDC, Social Security, food stamps, various subsidies) actually go to people wealthier than they come from. The government is no Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. On the average it is just the opposite. Not that I think it would be justified even if it ran the way it supposedly does. The citizens of the US decided during the New Deal that it was a proper function of government to provide minimum protection to people trapped by circumstances beyond their control SOME citizens decided this. Even if it was the majority, does that make it right? The majority supported slavery at one time. Individuals have certain rights that cannot be subsumed to the tyranny of the majority. The cost of this minimum protection is enough to bankrupt the nation. The federal government is nearly two trillion dollars in debt and rapidly getting deeper into debt. Nearly all of this can be attributed to social spending, not to defense. When you take into account the fact that about half the money spent for defense returns at once in the form of taxes, and when you count social security, medicare, and medicaid as part of the social budget rather than being completely seperate from the federal budget, and when you attribute the VA and military pensions to the social budget rather than the defense budget, and when you count state and local taxes, none of which go to defense, you will discover that defense only takes up 16% of tax revenues. Certainly that should be reduced, but defense is not THE problem. Taxes could be cut to 1/4 of their current amount if social spending was abolished. And I don't just mean federal income taxes but ALL taxes. Add up just how much extra money that would be for you. Probably it would be even greater savings for your employer and your landlord, which would both pass on most of their savings to employees and tenants to remain competitive. Can you imagine suddenly being this much wealthier? Can you imagine EVERYONE suddenly being this much wealthier? What wonders it would do for business, for consumer spending. Most people could buy a new car with one year's tax savings. A small amount of this windfall would be given voluntarily to the one percent of the population who are permanently truly needy and the two percent of the population who are temporarily truly needy. And to anyone else who can make a good case that they should receive voluntary donations. These percentages would probably shrink even further if people would stop reciting 'I am trapped by circumstances beyond my control' to themselves. People who are blind and deaf have lived productive and rewarding lives. People raised in orphanages have made great discoveries. People with no legs have won skiing trophies. People with no arms have become millionaires. People foolish enough to become addicted to drugs have stopped using them and gone on to live useful long and healthy lives. People sentenced to death in high security prisons have escaped. You seem to share common misconceptions about the New Deal. Nothing like that would have been allowed by the citizens except that there was a terrible depression at the time. The depression was caused by government meddling in the free market. The New Deal did not end the depression, it made it worse. World War II ended the depression. The New Deal policies have been a constant major drag on the economy ever since. Our technology is light years beyond that of the 1920s. Worker's efficiencies have doubled, doubled again, and doubled again. Farm productivity is up by a factor of ten. Electric power available to the average person has increased by a factor of 100. Computer power, by a factor of several trillion. So why do we seem to be only a little wealthier and happier than people were in the 1920s? And in some ways we are worse off. The average family in 1926 could afford a house and a new car. The average family in 1986 can afford neither. How do you explain this? -------