“Only a few find the way, some don't recognize it when they do - some... don't ever want to.”
~ The Cheshire Cat
"All civil law is nothing but the agreement of society of men, either by themselves, or one or more authorized by them, determining the rights, and appointing rewards and punishments, to certain actions of all within society." ~ John Locke
Late
night, sitting at a café in NYC, eating something yummy but terribly unhealthy,
trying to soak up the juice from a scotch tasting….Somehow, the conversation
turned from a fashion faux pas at work to America’s supposed mixed-up
understanding of socialism. The examples
presented were mostly from Europe - how Switzerland, for example, does a much
better job with public education than the U.S.A. Then someone noted how
American policy is determined mostly by capitalist greed and would do better
with a socialist model. Fast forward a
few months, and I am sitting with another friend, who was sharing with me their
conflict over giving money to a homeless person on the street. My friend’s arguments were well founded and
highlighted the complexity of such social issues, including the role of
organized social services, the accessibility of jobs, and the potential for the
use of their donation to go to something less normatively desirable, like drugs
or alcohol.
Ultimately,
both conversations left me with the same feelings of being a bit torn between
my own values and a bit befuddled by my own desire to find a middle ground to
what feels like a deeply complex and important set of questions. So, I have
been trying to untangle my thoughts. On
a side note - yes, I am thoroughly annoyed with myself for turning fun nights
into months of intense contemplation! There
are a few pieces of media that helped me sort through my thoughts, which
provide clear arguments in a manner that is much more compelling than my
ramblings below (even if I don’t completely agree with every point):
- A well-depicted argument for the free market and capitalism: http://ipencilmovie.org
- A brilliant essay on U.S. social spending: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138483/kimberly-j-morgan/americas-misguided-approach-to-social-welfare
- A controversial piece on the pros and cons of giving: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/should-you-give-money-to-homeless-people/72820/
Anyway,
I think my frustration lies in the dichotomous nature that these conversations
tend to take– As if freedom and support were at odds with each other. Across the world, our interactions with the
market, the investments we make in social welfare, and our decisions about when
and how much to contribute to supporting an individual or a social service organization
are fraught with major contradictions.
First,
I don’t think that socialism and capitalism are fundamentally at theoretical
odds with each other, at least not in the manner that they are commonly
employed in modern debates. We, as a human society, have negotiated the
development of governing institutions (e.g. churches, land owners, employers,
government) to help care for our collective and individual social needs; and,
more recently, have demanded that those governing systems are given their legitimacy
through liberal democratic processes. On
some level we have agreed that an institution that cares for the needs in
society will benefit all of us in some way, and will distribute the weight of
that care across members of that society.
Further, these governing institutions have some role to play in ensuring
that the private sector is regulated, to the extent that it benefits the other
participants in the market, producers and consumers alike. The government is also well placed to ensure
that most individuals will equitably contribute to a system that creates better
education, roads, sanitation systems, social services, etc. There is a real risk and cost to this system,
which I must highlight here: by taking away some income through taxation to support
government services, we do limit some individual choices of the tax payer. That
is a trade-off that I am reasonably comfortable with…but it is a trade-off.
So,
yeah, I guess I lean towards socialism when it comes to providing both social
services and regulating the market!
BUT…..
I
think a free(ish) and well-functioning market is also essential to a happy and
health human society. I believe this
freedom is so important, in part, because I think each individual is best
placed to make free and autonomous decisions to pursue their own happiness. However,
I believe that markets cannot regulate themselves. We have seen that there are too many flawed human
interactions within the market system to assume that the theoretical
functioning will not be tainted by the complicated humans within the
system. Thus, regulation is a necessary
part of the market system we have created, and a democratic government happens
to be the best placed institution to do that regulating (I won’t go further with
this line of reasoning here, but feel free to argue with me about that massive
chunk of ideology!). That said, I am
left asking: what does a “free” market mean on an individual level in the
context of social services?
I believe strongly that the
person requesting help should use the money they receive in the way they choose; and I also
recognize that, for all humans, there are other factors that lead us to make
less-than-ideal, less-than-healthy decisions on a daily basis. So, why am I afforded that freedom? Is it because I have a full-time
society-approved job? And if I did
choose to share my income with someone else, why should they not be afforded
the same freedom to choose how to spend that money? Well, that is a complicated
argument, because the question then becomes: why do social support
services/systems get to dictate the use of the support they provide to an
individual on behalf of society? And, if
some people are struggling with issues that truly prevent them from working and
contributing in a formal market economy, does that give society the right to
remove their choice regarding how benefits are utilized….well, maybe. That is the beauty of many welfare systems in
the U.S.A. - they still afford some degree of choice regarding what school to
attend, what groceries to buy, what medical provider to see, etc.. Indeed, most evidence shows that a well-established
social welfare system has choice and freedom built into it; including
additional services to support those who have some limits on their capacities
to make choices (e.g. someone with a severe form of mental illness who finds some
choices to be overwhelming; or a single parent who needs support to help sort
through different options).
To
be honest, I am not frequently inclined to give money to the person on the
street/subway who is asking for help, for a variety of reasons. Although, I am happy to pay for my added
enjoyment from a subway performance, and don’t think twice about how that
contribution to the performer will be used.
On the other hand, I expect that my contribution to a social service
program or to taxes for social services will go toward a “positive” or
“healthy”, rather than “destructive” input into someone’s life; and I expect
that the social service provider (government or otherwise) will define those
norms in the same way that I do. The hypocrisy is that, when I was laid off of
my first job out of grad school, I utilized unemployment benefits; and no one
told me what I could or couldn’t spend that money on or asked me if I bought a
whiskey with some of that income (I am sure I did!).
Finally,
I also tend to support social interventions that lead to sustainable change and
help individuals to gain more freedom and increased ability to interact with
the market and society, eventually without support. Realistically, however, not all social
interventions can be directed in this manner, as some needs are on-going (e.g.
for the elderly, or individuals with physical or mental disabilities). I guess, like with all things human, the
multi-dimensionality of these issues leads to a morass of contradictions.
