I, personally, don't blame people who like to loaf and rationally accept the incentives offered them to do so. I myself would be a welfare queen (well, I'd prefer king) if I could get it, and if I didn't enjoy the aspects of the good life that I'm able to afford.
I'm also not very patient with people who cry hypocrisy because I, a libertarian, drive on the public roads. If you dangle the carrot in front of me long enough, I'll take a bite. Prick a libertarian; doth he not bleed?
The moral obligation here is on the people offering the bad incentives. Contra Jon, however, I think that incentive falls more strongly on them to prevent the expansion of the loafing class by migration than by birth.
Why? Jon refers to the answer in one of his posts when he notes that social programs never really go away. Machiavelli noted the same in The Prince in another context when he recommended that conniving princes who manage to acquire republics should maintain the liberties of the people to which they have grown accustomed. And Chris Rock mentions it in the context of divorce: what about what the man has become accustomed to?
The welfare state isn't just social policy; it's culture. Immigrants coming here can have no rational expectation of loafing; the children of loafers are habituated to it from childhood.
Getting loafing class members born on our side of the invisible map line from loafing at our expense is going to be harder than shutting off the tap; we should be able to wean those born on the other side immediately, without fear of violence.
And that violence... call me a hippie; I really do think we could come in for a soft landing if we could adopt some sensible policies. Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together and love one another. Right now. Really, though, hurry up, clock's ticking.
I know, I know, I might as well hope the space aliens land and give us matter replicators.
No comments:
Post a Comment