BY
Prevalent in conservative politics today is a common theme of animosity towards the “welfare state.” Programs that go by a number of names like “the government dole”, or simply stated, “welfare programs.” At best, this nomenclature includes any number of subsets of agencies and programs depending on how informed and how principled the objector claims to be. For many, they hearken back to President Johnson’s “Great Society” suite of initiatives, including Medicare, Medicaid, and a number of education initiatives. For those a little more “radical”, they may even consider other 20th century initiatives like Franklin Roosevelt’s Social Security Act or Wilson’s Revenue Act or Federal Reserve Act to be unnecessary expansions of the state’s role in citizen’s lives. More often, those arguing for the “rollback of the welfare state” probably have some messy, inconsistent impression of what it constitutes.
But, if I may be so bold, I would like to argue for what I think is a more consistent classification. I would argue that these and so many more functions of the modern state constitute welfare programs.
In fact, I would say that basically ALL government programs are welfare programs. How can that be, you say? I base my assertion on one simple test.
Take public education, for instance. Some who are already biased against American public education for a number of very good reasons may easily agree that an alternative is needed but let us play the test out. For many years now, States have been experimenting with alternatives to public education like magnet schools, charter schools, and voucher systems. However, these initiatives are often blocked at every turn by vested interests like the education system itself and teachers unions. But when all of the qualitative arguments against public education are dealt with, the one real argument that remains is this: what about those that cannot afford to educate themselves?
And herein lies the true, fundamental question that undergirds the legitimacy of so many functions of government and my fundamental assertion.
If the final defense for the existence of any government service is the lack of the ability for those less fortunate to afford or access that service in a free and voluntary society, then that function is, at heart, a welfare program.
Shall we extend the test further? For more than a century, public infrastructure, services, and utilities have been a bastion of government monopoly. Most Americans of every political stripe do not think twice about the practicality or even necessity for their state and local governments to administer and manage roads, waterways, airways, water, sewer, electricity, hospitals, fire departments, and emergency response. In recent years, Net Neutrality has focused on extending that control to the internet as well. Ask anyone on the street if these things could be provided for by private companies and while some might be able to imagine a few of them working for some places and some people, it will not take long for our magic objection to surface: what about roads for poor neighborhoods? What if some couldn’t pay for a necessary medical procedure? I can’t shop around for the cheapest fire department while my home is on fire!
Even more contentious is “national defense.” One would be hard pressed to find a handful of people who would entertain the idea of military defense not being provided for by taxation and managed by the state. And while it might be possible to imagine billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk affording their own private security force, objections would abound about how even middle class families could not afford to live in the newest secure walled compound or defending those without the time or money to train to serve in their local militia.
Or how about courts and police services? While many disputes could be handled by private arbitration, what about those who could not afford such services? Who would investigate murders, track down stolen property, or find missing persons, especially for those less fortunate?
Hopefully I’ve driven the point home. Now, I want to emphasize that many of the objections given in any one of these areas are actually well warranted. We ought to be interested in how to bring about the most possible human flourishing and the most possible peace and prosperity for the most people. But if one’s fundamental objection is against welfare programs as a matter of principle, and if political principles are to be consistently applied, then we cannot escape the conclusion that many, if not all government programs are, at root, welfare programs. We should ask ourselves why we rail against one program and not the other; is it a matter of partisanship, or a matter of principle?
BY
Originally published at NoKingButChrist.org
_______________________________
Find it on 
