TTI Forums

One of our recent visitors put forth the impression that he felt better about himself now that his views had shifted to a more socialist perspective.

Are socialists really more humane than individualists?

I went to my dictionary for some insight on this, at first glance there seems to be contradiction

Humane: Having what are considered the best qualities of mankind.

Humanism: any system of thought or action based on the nature, dignity, interests and ideas of man: specifically a modern, non-theistic, rationalist movement that holds man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism.

Humanitarian: A person devoted to promoting the welfare of humanity, especially through the elimination of pain and suffering; philanthropist.

When I read this it seemed like humanism supports the individualistic ideals well. And it seemed like humanitarian supports a socialist view. It seemed like both these words, with the same root, contradict each other.

At its heart socialism takes from one person and gives to another without providing a fair and agreed upon exchange between the parties. I maintain that this condition,

• Is not natural
  Does not reinforce self-fulfillment
  Is not ethical
  Expands pain and suffering
  And reinforces some of the more base qualities of mankind like theft, coercion and sloth

I’ll attempt to describe the situation from three sides Victim, Beneficiary and Society at Large.

The Victim – in this instance is the person who has been taken from. This person has through hard work and good fortune achieved wealth and freedom. Then a third party makes a claim to part, or all, of this wealth for the “greater good”. Almost universally this third party is rife with corruption. Clearly it is not fair to the victim to loose any part of the wealth and freedom they possess. I view this loss as transferring the pain and suffering of the beneficiary and the third party to the victim.

The Beneficiary – wrongfully receives additional wealth and freedom as a result of some “ill” determined by a third party. To a degree the beneficiary is subsidized for possessing one or more of these social maladies. The beneficiary has less incentive to be self-fulfilled and instead relies upon some social construct to fulfill their needs. To a degree they become a parasite. In essence society destroys self-fulfillment by creating subsidies.

Society at Large - a basic economic tenant is that you get more of whatever you subsidize. By creating this special class of beneficiaries, you beget more beneficiaries. By encouraging additional numbers of beneficiaries we in effect add to the amount of pain and suffering in the world.

From these three perspectives I think socialism is less humane than individualism. And I feel less humane every time the taxman shows up to collect and redistribute my wealth. Of course we victims have no choice in this matter. Make no mistake the basis of socialism is coercion. Socialism much like slavery can only exist if there is enough force to keep the system in place.

That argument appears persuasive until one realizes that a living, breathing, autonomous human being cannot and should not be put into the same category as widgets or tubesocks when theorizing about social benefits and losses. When a government subsidizes a good or services, like tubesocks for example, it lowers the cost of producing tubesocks, thereby moving the supply curve to the right without a comparable shift in demand, only a shift in the quantity demanded as affected by the price change. This causes a surplus. Obviously this would be an economic loss for society given that there is no benefit to having a surplus of tubesocks, only the loss that results from resources being used to produce extra tubesocks which would be better allocated elsewhere. Markets are very good at dealing with tubesocks in this manner.

Human beings, in my mind, are much different. Suppose a government begins subsidizing health care. This would ultimately result in money being taken from the richer to pay for the health of those that presently cannot afford an adequate amount. Your argument focuses on the disincentive that results, the disincentive of those that presently cannot afford health care to try to increase their income so that they can. You also focus on the inherent unfairness of taking from one and giving to another without consent. So, like any true economist, we must way the benefits and losses to society of such a proposal.

On the one hand, it's unfair to the richer classes and it could result in a disincentive for the worse-off to better themselves. On the other hand, many people who could not afford health care, a large percentage of those being the children of poor parents who had no choice as to what family they were born into, would have access to basic health services. I believe your argument exaggerates the losses to society of the former and underestimates the benefits of the latter. I use to picture welfare recipients as lazy leeches on the rest of us. I only came to change that view through personal experience, so I would not be able to change your mind here. It is something you would have to experience yourself.

I can, however, demonstrate the effects of diminishing marginal utility. As someone accumulates more and more of something, each additional unit of it provides less utility. This can be applied to wealth. Someone who makes 100,000 a year would get much less utility out of another dollar than, say, a bum on the street. Therefore, taking a dollar from that rich person and giving it to the bum would have an overall benefit to the utility of society, despite the possible negative feeling of the "victim" that he's been taken from without his consent.

It's kind of late, so the above was probably a bit messy and confusing, but that is basically how I see the benefits in economic terms. I do not believe most benefits of government services are leechers who would be quick to try and better themselves in the absence of those services or who became or remain poor purely of their own choices in life. Capitalism requires winners and losers. If everyone in the society worked hard in school and went to college there would be no one to clean the toilets, pump gas, or operate drive-thru windows, services which society relies upon. Since we choose to live in such a system, we should be mindful of the condition we leave the less fortunate in, and do what we can to ensure they and their children receive at least what is necessary to live a dignified life, whether or not you feel it is just for a third party to make that decision for you.

Fertile fields of discussion here Jack. Thanks for your perspectives. You certainly do make a stronger argument than I customarily receive on this topic.

Jack Apples wrote: On the one hand, it's unfair to the richer classes and it could result in a disincentive for the worse-off to better themselves. On the other hand, many people who could not afford health care, a large percentage of those being the children of poor parents who had no choice as to what family they were born into, would have access to basic health services. I believe your argument exaggerates the losses to society of the former and underestimates the benefits of the latter. I use to picture welfare recipients as lazy leeches on the rest of us.

While recognizing the unfairness of socialism, your claim is that its good far outweighs the bad. My point is that socialism is a slippery slope. Certainly at the outset socialism deals a small cut to the victim; places a minimal burden of conscious on the beneficiary; and leads to minimal corruption of government. But socialism is a snowball rolling down hill, it gains size perpetually. By claiming to enslave the few and rewarding the many, socialism gains a popular mandate to expand.

Ultimately socialism collapses under its own weight. We have had numerous literary and real world examples of this claim.

• A single cut may not be fatal to the victim, but 1,000 cuts just might be deadly, or at least give Atlas a reason to shrug.
  A single hand-out may feel like an unexpected boon, but the persistent condition of begging and leaching creates a conflicted mindset of entitlement, helplessness and self-loathing, and discontent.
  A small gesture of theft and giving may seem altruistic on governments’ part, but gets out of hand when socialism gets so large as to dominate GDP. The big pool of money breeds corruption, bureaucracy, influence peddling and uneven treatment.

I have a great real world example of socialism in action. I live next to Tijuana Mexico. I actually worked in Tijuana from some time. Tijuana has all the trappings of a third world country, and yet Mexico is a social democracy. The people in Tijuana receive a fraction of the pay received by their neighbors a few miles to the north. The government taxes each worker about 4% of their pay for a housing program. Understand the people do not get a house for this price, they get a lottery ticket. If they win the lottery, the government will provide them with the smallest, most piss poor, concrete dwelling you could imagine. By the government’s estimate less than 2% of the people taxed win housing in any given year. Working the math we determine that the average man must live in a shanty made of wooden pallets and cardboard boxes for 25 years before he has a 50/50 chance of winning a house. Most people paying the tax and find a way to buy a better and nicer home before they win the lottery; of course they have to keep paying the housing tax – a lifetime of servitude! And recently their has been a scandal (OH WHAT A SUPRIZE) the bureaucrats rigged the lottery!

In my mind this a fantastic real world example of socialism in action.

• Supporters will claim that they are only focusing upon stealing from the rich and privileged – and yet in the end it is the entirety of society that is saddled.
  Supporters will claim that socialism corrects social ills – and while a fortunate few do receive support the majority of people in need cannot be supported. There just isn’t enough money to steal to make everyone wealthy.
  It illustrates the corruption that springs from every socialist endeavor.
  It illustrates that in the end (despite what a socialist might tell you) we are all individuals. We all must make our own way in the world, in spite of the hardships that maybe fall us.

Masashi wrote:By the government’s estimate less than 2% of the people taxed win housing in any given year. Working the math we determine that the average man must live in a shanty made of wooden pallets and cardboard boxes for 25 years before he has a 50/50 chance of winning a house.

I can't add to the Humane/Humanism/Humanitarian debate but I will point out that if somebody has a 2% chance per year of winning a lottery it will take 35 years before they have a 50/50 chance of winning. The simplest way of thinking about it is what is the chance that they haven't won the lottery? After year 1 it is 98%, year 2 it is 98%*98% = 96.04% after year n it is 98%^n. When n=35 this becomes 49.3%, ie the chance of winning the lottery after 35 years is 1-0.493 = 50.7%.

Irrelevant to the discussion I know, but gave me something to do for 2 mins!

You have here a discussion on theory of government. In Theory socialism benefits society more then individualism or our capitalism. Fact is though socialistic societies collapse due to many reasons. One of which is corruption of the very top officials. ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Even in a democracy for the last 50 years EVERY president we have had has been involved in a major scandal while president. (Except bush, but he hasn’t finished yet). We’re lucky we can throw the bastards out after a couple terms…

I honestly think socialists are more conscious of others then individualistics. Why? My education was funded by the government via federal grants each semester I was in college. This action towards me has changed me permanently. I can honestly say that I look at my society in a completely different light. Where I only saw those who had more then I now I am much more humane and conscious of others who are less fortunate. There are many great benefits of having the ‘productive’ taxed to benefit ALL of society…

Bottom line:

I am against socialistic societies for different reasons than put forth above. In a socialistic society quality is under appreciated. Older I get the more I want higher quality goods and services. In a capitalistic society I can find much better quality of goods and services then is ‘normally’ found in socialist society and thus I am much happier, especially when it comes to health care. While socialist are occupied with providing, I’m looking for someone who is specializing in high quality goods. Fortunately our country has more then we need and we have lifted ourselves to a certain level where everyone has a level of quantity, be that food/shelter/health services etcetera and there is still that precious quality to be had.

Raaz Satik wrote: After year 1 it is 98%, year 2 it is 98%*98% = 96.04% after year n it is 98%^n. When n=35 this becomes 49.3%, ie the chance of winning the lottery after 35 years is 1-0.493 = 50.7%.

I stand corrected Raaz, you’d think a degree in statistics would have taught me to workout the permutations on that… lol a bit rushed for time there.

Shaz introduces a strong example. Steal from All to benefit the Poor and Society. Clearly not a zero sum situation! By educating the poor, hopefully they become more productive and add to society. Ultimately making the world a better place.

Certainly more persuasive than Howard Stern’s little limerick, “I don’t care if it rains or freezes, as long as I get my check and free cheeses.” Subsidizing poverty is really the weakest socialist ground to defend.

Shaz what if… What if there wasn’t a socialist system of education?

• Would other alternatives surface?
  Would those alternatives become optimized over time to be every bit as effective as the current systems?
  Would the presence of those, call them “free market”, institutions in some way provide inspiration to make the world a different but better place?

See I believe that supply rises to fill a need. If there is a need for education - private alternatives can arise to provide the service demanded. And the same benefit (you rightly point out) could be had without the introduction of socialism. Unfortunately this is “what if” and not “what is.” But can’t we dream of a world free from tyranny?

On the other hand, add government competition and influence to a free market place and any number of imbalances can occur.

Sorry, I lack the big words, fancy vocabulary and over knowledge of what either side actually represents.

But why would anyone classify themselves into a group? "A group" from what it sounds like adheres strictly to one way of thinking. Which, to me isn't an ideal way of thinking. Perhaps both sides have a good and bad quality to them and as pointed out both sides don't necessarily work. Maybe that's because of the mindset "I'm a socialist, this is what I'm suppose to think." or "I'm an individualist, this is what I'm suppose to think." To me that kinda takes the "I" part away... if you're forced into one way of thinking.

I'll try to explain my theory on my outlook of life based upon my experiences, using the expamles I've seen here.

Scenerio 1:
A middle-aged single mother with 3 children must work 2 jobs only to "just make it". Children go to school, she works hard, housing isn't adequate, but suffices.

Scenerio 2:
A dead beat ex-husband, lives in a run down apartment, has a part-time job with no chance to climb the ladder. He's lazy, skipped out on child-support a few years back, on the verge of becoming homeless because he doesn't do anything to try and change his life.


Now both scenerios, based upon my life here in America are eligible for some type of government funds, be it food stamps.. whatever. Now according to socialism as I've seen it explained here. Both are entitled to help from a third party (Government usually) at the expense of those better off, but my problem with this is, why should the deadbeat get anything if he's unwilling to change or work for something better. While the single mother does what she can to provide for herself and her kids.


... As I've typed this out... and trying to put my thought process into words, I'm finding what I want to say to be a little more hard then initially thought.

I guess how my outlook, is more of a situationaly, at that given time moment. Don't apply any kind of "But this is what I am suppose to think" logic.

Blah... I'm stopping now... sorry for wasting your time. Congratulations if any of this made sense, feel free to fill me in on what I was typing. >_<

Masashi wrote:Shaz what if… What if there wasn’t a socialist system of education?

• Would other alternatives surface?
  Would those alternatives become optimized over time to be every bit as effective as the current systems?
  Would the presence of those, call them “free market”, institutions in some way provide inspiration to make the world a different but better place?

See I believe that supply rises to fill a need. If there is a need for education - private alternatives can arise to provide the service demanded. And the same benefit (you rightly point out) could be had without the introduction of socialism. Unfortunately this is “what if” and not “what is.” But can’t we dream of a world free from tyranny?

The only 'needs' that are 'met' are those 'individuals' stand to profit from. For all other 'very beneficial to all' programs government aka socialists need to step in. Such as military defense. No corp. in the world would run a army for hire. there is a huge need for highly skilled/equiped soilders but the costs to train/equip and deploy a army is astronomical. That is why governments are have armies and not private companies.

I still hold that IF there were companies that _could_ turn a dollar from selling armies then they would be far better then any gov's. but the idea is so fanciful its almost hard to grasp .

Back to your idea of free market... as with many goods and services what you pay for is what you get. A good education has a BIG price tag, and a huge time comitment. We commonly do not accept doctorate and master degrees from other countries for many reasons... maybe that they didnt pay anything for thier education and they got what they paid for?? which is why socialists are nicer ppl. see they 'accept' EVERYONE

just skimmed this but noticed the analogy of giving a dollar to a bum helps the bum more than the rich guy. correct.

the next day the bum is still a bum. the rich guy would still have that dollar and would be producing that much more goods with that dollar.

i experienced this first hand in high school. some bum begged from me and i gave him a 20. next week guess what. another twenty and another and then i asked him what he was doing to better himself..... i got what i determined later to be bullshitting. another 20. i eventually stopped confused as to what i was doing wrong. answer: nothing i was doing my civic duty helping the less fortunate.

think of it this way, a dollar to a bum doesnt help him advance himself, but it will help the rich man.

oh btw.... dont mind me when i steal 2 dollars from your next paycheck. if you see more taken out well.... that just must be other bums.

the conclusions should be obvious..... a HARD life makes for better and stronger people. everyone was born into life. the rich are rich and stay rich because they know how to invest build etc. plenty of rich are stupid and eventually are poor.

another thing: its not just a single dam dollar. i look at my paycheck in the capitalistic country of america and it sickens me. i was working for the government until about april 15th. 1/3 of the entire year. government expenses come to about 1/3 military 1/3 social security and 1/3 welfare..... not exactly that but yea. so social security is paying for other people and inflation will kill what i get later on. 1 full or 2 full months im working for OTHER people. its not just one dam dollar.

and the stuff about oh poor people in africa they had no choice where they were born.... well... welcome to life. sometimes it sucks. the more we help feed them the more are born. nature has a way of dealing with this. starvation is the natural limit on population.


there was a question raised in phil class a few years back. "if you see a child drowning in a pool is the nearby adult who can swim morally obligated to help?"

the assumption was that everyone would answer yes and then the conclusion was that rich nations should help drowning nations.

i was the only one in the class to say the adult was not morally obligated. i would choose "stronly morally encouraged" as opposed to obligated. not to mention faults with the first statement... the second has tremendous logical flaws. now its one government mandating that its citizens help a country with starving citizens that will do nothing more than ask for more help later. and for a nation to truely be on the brink of destruction it needs more hurt than just starvation. a drowning child is comparative to a nation with an icbm in the air aimed at its country.

rescueing drowning adults is a better thing to do. japan and germany are good examples of this on the national scale. helping a capable person or nation is an investment on a later return. helping a lazy bum (dont even try to tell me people cant get off thier bums and work in a subway store for a living.) does nothing but throw away money and contribute to inflation and a lazy attitude. perhaps that day that bum can buy his dose of crack but the day he gets in a subway store and works for a living is the day that i will feel inclined to help him out should he need it.

I think difference between socialism and individualism (or capitalims or liberalism) are more complicated than it seems at first sight.
By the way, please pardon me, I'm not a native english speaker.
There are different way to look at socialism and I'll recommend the excellent article on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) as a very good reference on this matter.
I see one point missing though in all discussion here (and also on the wikipedia article), is the reference to materialism as derived by Marx and Engels from Hegel's dialectic idealism.
From my own prospective the main argument against socialism is actually against materialism for it denies the existence of God.
This was a short post, but I do not feel comfortable enough to argue in English, would it be in French, I could spend hours speaking and arguing on this

Great Wikipedia article! It is very detailed without much bias in either direction. I was surprised to learn the utopian Robert Owen is considered a socialist. I’ve enjoyed reading about the colonies Owen founded and lived in. I think he showed great courage to risk restructuring his entire world as he did.

True enough Furax, the differences between individualism and socialism are bigger than an elephant. In a sense, we are like blind men attempting to describe this elephant one part at a time. Buy focusing the question upon the humane nature of the difference; I was hoping to describe one of the feet of this elephant.

Based upon this focused question, do you think Socialists are more humane than individualists?

By the way I would like to complement you on your English skills. You communicate well and your grammar is very good. I believe you have a unique & valuable perspective to share with us on this subject in particular. So many of the people that post in the forums are American, like myself. I personally have not had the privilege to gain a cosmopolitan perspective as you have living in France, and the EU. Certainly your insight and experience would help to broaden my understanding. Please do share more.

There is more here then just, "does passing my dollar to someone less fortunate benefit him and, by extension, society as a whole?"

The Soviet Union, after approximately 60 years of Socialism, is no more. The veil of secrecy is coming down. Information is getting out. What great technological breakthroughs have they been responsible for? What advances in science and medicine can we attribute to Socialism? Do these things not benefit society? Of course they do but Socialism stifles the incentive to create for any but the truly altruistic. What the Soviets are best known for in this area is their ability to steal and adapt the technologies of others. Even here and at this level, the parasite comes through.

Socialism is also a system without hope. Man is simply not designed to find fulfillment in sitting on the couch all day, everyday, living off of the dole. He needs to be productive and to have that productivity recognized and appreciated by others. It may sound petty but the need for some measure of external acknowledgement is build into our very being. In a true Socialist system, you can’t possibly accomplish anything that wasn’t expected of you simply because, as it turns out, you were capable. In a true Socialist system, even curing cancer won’t get you your “fifteen minutes”.

Socialism is a great idea for the short term thinker. Sure, we would all like that big Limo the boss drives around. So I know, we'll establish a system where I get a piece of his bigger pie just because my pie is smaller. But then what the short term thinker forgets about, is the fact that for every 1 of him there are 30 Joe's who want a refridgerator as nice as his, and for everyone one of them another 50 who want shelter over their head.

Unfortunately, the pie just isn't big enough to go around when there isn't incentive, and thats why most 'lefty' countries fall into steady relative economic secular decline when compared with their 'righty' counterparts. Why should I work that extra hour when I get paid based on need rather than ability? Why should I design that engine when the benefits it produces will be spread amongst the people who couldnt design it?

There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards man for his inability rather than his ability, and punishes the innovators and workers. And more often than not, it is the advocates of such a system who call themselves 'moral'.

Sansake^ wrote:Socialism is also a system without hope.

Interesting... I agree. There is something luring about the theory.. if you dont understand human nature, and are ignorant to history ofc.

the theory makes it much easier to manipulate people lower on down the chain. 'do your duty for the sake of society' while the benefits really are slanted towards the speaker. fear of losing your job pay or moral status is the motivation. whenever someone whines about something "OMFG THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!!!oneoneone" i just turn a deaf ear, it usually turns out that the thing needing to be done benefits the speaker more than others.....

fear is the motivation in socialism, the motivation in capitalism is the advancement of self.

Shazam0 wrote:
I agree. There is something luring about the theory..

Sorry, I just had to find a way to use that image...

Hello to anyone that remembers me from TTI a long, long time back

I just happened to check out the site again, and saw this post and felt compelled to throw my two cents in. Before I do so, it will quickly become obvious that I am not an individualist, and even during my time in TTI was not so; that is, in life. In online gaming, however, where the consequences of our actions and moral / ethical standards are not comparable in potential for damage, I am out for money and power.

Now, the reason I felt so compelled to let my feelings on the subject be known, is that the arguments laid forth do not seem to make sense, at least to me. How is it that looking out for oneself, and only oneself, and not lending a helping hand to those in need, possible more humane than socialism, where the less fortunate are helped?

Now, I am not saying I am believe that every person should be placed on the same level, and given the same items; this would leave the world a dull and boring place and the monotony would be too much to bear; this is off subject but I just wished to let that be known. Now, in a system where the less fortunate are helped, how can the argument that greedy and selfish people only looking out for themselves - and ignoring the elss fortunate in the process - possibly be more humane than lending a small share of assets to those unfortunate people, who by the accident of birth, were not given the same oppurtunities? I fail to see the logic in that situation. What is basically being said, that the "wrong" done to the wealthy person that is having something taken from them, that was in excess anyway, and given to help out someone that was not fortunate enough to have the same oppurtunities, is more of a "wrong" than those same selfish people keeping to themselves and letting the less fortunate rot?

It was even said in the argument that these "victims" are "fortunate" to attain that wealth. If fortune is a factor, why should these "victims" be so hurt by sharing a small amount of wealth, which would be used for luxuries that are not essential to everyday life, in order to help out a fellow human being? I'm apologize, but this argument is just not logical in my opinion. But again, I have a different philosophy when it comes to real life situations; I am of the general persuasion that there is more to life than money, but should I ever come into a large amount of money I certainly will look to make that large sum of money even larger through investments, etc, but will also donate some of it to help those that were not fortunate enough to be in my position.

Do people that work harder than others deserve more in wealth and assets? I would say that, yes, they do. But this should not get in the way of basic human decency and respect for your fellow man. In no way, shape, or form should individualism be considered more "humane" than socialism.

/end rant

As a guest, I shouldn't post this long but things seem quiet here anyway.

Another dichotomy that must be considered is that between intention and outcome.

It is to a degree naively commendable to care about the lot of the poor in an unequal society. Those people who feel the pain of inequality keenly can quite easily be called “humane” on those terms. And those entirely insensitive to the suffering (relative or absolute) of the poor could be faulted by extension as inhumane.

However, that only relates to intentions, not outcomes. If it is true that equity has real material costs, it is vital to understand where those costs are coming from. Costs bourn by the rich in the society over and above material well-being transferred from them to the needy may be conscionable. However, if the pursuit of equality lowers the standard of living of the poor, the question of humane action is more complicated.

No one would say that a check from the government is directly going to make a poor family worse off. And, to repeat, we can excuse the pain caused to the rich by taking stuff away from them for the benefit of the poor, in an attempt to establish a better society. The issue that decides the balance of the question is in the indirect effects.

It takes some imagination to conceptualize enough hidden indirect effects to completely remove the good done by noble egalitarian impulse to rob from the rich and give to the poor. (Where have I heard that before?) But if there are enough of them and they are big enough, then the balance shifts. In other words, if the pursuit of an equitable society (Rawlsian etc) messes up the productive forces in the economy so bad that the poor end up with less than they would have in a “wild” economy, then fans of equity have a problem. They still can trumpet their “humane” intentions, but must be quieter about the desirability of the outcome they work for.

Contrary to intuition, it could be the case that the foes of egalitarianism, the selfish brutal exploiters of the poor, have in truth been working for a world where the poor are better off simply in fighting the leftists and the “good guys” are the enemy of the poor in their pursuit of equity. The foes of egalitarianism can have intentions that are good or ill, caring or not, but their actions are “humane” in the sense that the poor are better off when they win than when they lose.

A complication – relative vs. absolute poverty. People derive their utility from income from at least two sources (arguments in the utility function). One portion is the happiness from consumption that income makes possible. The other is relative utility or disutility from have more or less income than your reference set. Personally, I have a problem with people who weigh relative income too highly, but apparently some people do. One author, whose work I cannot immediately find, saw it as self-evident that if people where given the following choice, everyone would pick option B:

Option A: You have $100,000 in real income while everyone around you has $200,000.
Option B: You have $50,000 in real income and so does everyone else.

(real income means adjusted for price, so we’re not changing the value of dollars)

I wouldn’t pick B, though being the poor guy in option A would have undeniable utility costs.

If he is right, then its not necessary that the poor be made just worse off for a inefficient equitable society to be a bad idea, but that they be made so worse off that the poor would prefer an inequitable society to what they have. How much are the poor willing to pay is a question I can’t answer and I would be suspicious of anyone who said they could.

A further complication – measurement.

Macroeconomics depends on the real world for its experiments. Outside of a lab, science has trouble attributing effects to causes. There is always significant room for disagreement. Methods to resolve disputes are usually so extremely complicated and necessitate so many assumptions to get answers that they offer little hope of yielding results that real people can hang their hats on. For this matter, we will never get an answer to questions like, “How much did this income-redistribution program cost the economy?” or “How much worse would the poor have it if we lowered welfare payments?” There are papers on those subjects, each ending by declaring the answers, but they are generally only as good as the assumptions built into them (not good).

We are left without firm numbers or a metric on which to judge those numbers if we had them. That leaves only what might be called “informal research” and gut feelings.

I’ve rambled on enough, but I hope I have added to the discussion. To give the best answer I can come up with, I’d like to link to a Swedish libertarian think-tank that did good work, but their site seems to be down. Bottom line: if the EU economies were states in the US, they would be among the poorest with standards of living more comparable to Mississippi than California. America has embraced fewer egalitarian policies than Europe and its poor are better off for it.

This forum was set up to welcome the opinions of guests. Interesting points Dul, thank you I agree with many of your points. I’d like to add some questions and insights that your words have brought to my mind.

Dul wrote:It is to a degree naively commendable to care about the lot of the poor in an unequal society. Those people who feel the pain of inequality keenly can quite easily be called “humane” on those terms. And those entirely insensitive to the suffering (relative or absolute) of the poor could be faulted by extension as inhumane.

What if we viewed socialism as say… a narcotic? Superimpose the words “crack cocaine” for socialism… Obviously in the short term the people receiving the crack would be euphoric and happy, by mistaken beliefs we might call this doling out of crack a humane action.

What would this narcotic picture look like over time? Would the recipients remain truly euphoric and happy? Nope. The narcotic would destroy the recipients’ self esteem, their rationality, and their productivity, IMO their very essence as human beings. The majority of respondents to the thread seem to agree that socialism has a similar, if less acute effect.

Dul wrote:No one would say that a check from the government is directly going to make a poor family worse off. And, to repeat, we can excuse the pain caused to the rich by taking stuff away from them for the benefit of the poor, in an attempt to establish a better society. The issue that decides the balance of the question is in the indirect effects.

I would. Back to my crack superposition… One hit from the glass pipe might not kill. However a single exposure often times is all that is required to lead to permanent addiction.

In the case of multi-generational dependency, a single check was the original provocation. Obviously not everyone that hits the pipe becomes an addict, nor every person that takes the dole becomes a permanent parasite. But I would say "avoid that first check just as you would avoid that first hit of crack." Either choice is the first step on a journey away from humanity.

Dul wrote:Bottom line: if the EU economies were states in the US, they would be among the poorest with standards of living more comparable to Mississippi than California. America has embraced fewer egalitarian policies than Europe and its poor are better off for it.

I would like to gain the perspective to judge this for myself one day. But doesn’t much of the standard of living difference have to do with the conscious decision to preserve culture and a rich European history?

As a Californian I don’t have my own culture, just bits and pieces of everyone else’s. This lack of unified culture allows us to pick and choose the cultural elements that some people might associate with a higher standard of living. A truly “plastic” situation.

My house is 40 years old and I am thinking about demolishing it to build something three times bigger. I couldn’t do this to an Italian villa, or a London row house. In the European context the physical and historic constraints become a “force” to influence life style choices.

yea i think its funny that the "poor" people in america live in run down houses etc which isnt bad, but they have some expensive item somewhere, a tv and cable usually, or a semi nice/nice car, or stuff like that. everyone has electricity a house/apt and so on.... those who dont are either mentally disabled or unable to work in a subway or something. the quality of life in america is pretty good...... and yet liberals keep prattling on about helping the poor...... wtf? plenty of subway sandwich artist jobs open...... thats all the help anyone needs.

compared to the poor in other places......capitalism is the dominant political structure. it works. what doesnt work is on either side of capitalism, fascism (what some people would fear would happen if bill gates became president and bought out 75% or more of the senators) and the weakening of capitalism via socialism. if i were black why should i work at a subway if i can work for a week at an office job get fired and sue for discrimination, or live on unemployment pay and rack up debt that will never be paid when bankruptcy is declared.....

reality is nasty harsh and filled with fleas and dirt. we depend on harsh nature to motivate and compell us to work for and gain progress. socialism strips humans of what makes us human..... our individualism and our will to overcome the harshness of reality. we are adaptive creatures, survivors and fighters..... in socialism what do we fight? ... the capitalists? thats all they seem to do....... perhaps they should focus more on fighting for progress.

Masashi,

The website I mentioned seems to be back up - Timbro: EU vs. USA in publications - I don’t know how to make a link, but the search is an easy one.

You bring up some aspects of the issue that I have avoided in my thinking at least half-consciously for a long time because of the challenge inherent in reasoning them out. My approach in my first note was intended to give as much ground as I could to the left side of the issue in order to over-fairly assess what remained. I’m an academic and have lots of friends and colleagues who feel differently than I do, so I have some practice treading carefully in these topics.

In truth, I agree with you on the detrimental human costs to redistributed income. I guess I was trying to acknowledge the marginal utility per dollar argument made by Jack Apples above. While I am not free in my daily life to equate welfare payments with something as inflammatory as crack cocaine, I accept that they are comparably damaging to the human spirit.

Welfare payments are a problem because of what they do to the individual receiving them, but become almost an outrage when we consider the generations to follow whose prospects are damaged by an individual’s choice to receive them. A culture of underachievement can be instituted in a generation, and it makes the struggle of any individual to achieve from within that culture dramatically harder. So though we may hope to break through the confines of the world-view the poor are often born in to with educational grants and head-start programs, society at large has little purchase on working parts of that machine.

The analytical challenge your remarks bring to mind is the following:

If a person is constrained by the traits, habits, tastes and expectations they inherit from the family in which they are raised (or by the building codes imposed by their societal institutions), then the individual may not be the ideal unit of observation. No others seem better, not the family or society or community or class etc, but I am driven to think that we are not capturing some important moving parts when we focus solely on the individual. No big surprise, really, but it kinda startled me to find a reason for sociology to exist. I am looking into the sociology literature currently to get a better conceptualization of my problem, but haven’t found anything in it yet that isn’t either entirely unsound or uselessly weak.

I have in mind the following:

A person derives at least part of their happiness from how their reality matches their expectations. An individual’s ambitions, also, is informed (to put it weakly) by what they have come to understand is possible. The formation of those expectations, then, is a singularly vital process in charting the path an individual takes and in his happiness when he gets there.

If an individual’s ambitions and dreams are conditioned to be lower than his real potential allows, both he and society are worse off for it. If, on the other hand, everyone believes they ought to make CEO money as a young adult, the individual and society will be less happy than they could be.

In the past, western civilization had the institution of social class. It is seen now as antithetical to freedom and progress, and it probably was to a degree. What has been forgotten about it is the positive net utility that it generated throughout the class structure. Class served to guide an individual’s expectations and dramatically increased the likelihood that those expectations could be met. Disposing of social class has allowed people to dream big and thereby allowed society to potentially take full advantage of in-born talents and abilities that its people possess regardless of what used to be called their station. But it has also taken away the bounds that used to comfort those with less than uppermost outcomes.

My concern is the tradeoffs implicit in an individual’s reference set, and the utility / income consequences of it. I fear we have accepted all the harm of a class system without enjoying any of the benefits.

Now we have a society where people don’t feel funny saying things like “the poor have a right to medical care just like rich folks” and somehow believes the term “distribution of income” refers to an event where some people got screwed and other people got lucky rather than a statistical description of individual’s productive activities. At the same time, they often feel powerless to achieve.

In answer to your point about Europe sacrificing material well-being in order to preserve culture and history, there is something there but not enough to explain the big differences that exist. The main difference I can find is the unwillingness of Europeans to move where the jobs are. They tolerate a bunch more frictional unemployment than Americans do in what can be interpreted as a dedication to culture and place. Most of the weaknesses of European economies come from structural labor market problems and general over-regulation. I am far more sympathetic for people choosing not to move for a job in order to preserve their family and culture than I am for a society which limits their members freedom to enter into contracts they find beneficial.

As far as preservation of historical homes etc, regulation is “taking”on the cheap, and I am opposed to it. If society wants your home to stay the way it is, then society should buy it and rent it to people who would agree to those conditions. When a society is “homogenous,” that which is culturally desired can be socially provided. When it is diverse, society as embodied in government has no business acting “cuturally” in my opinion.

Long again, but I’ve enjoyed this,

Dul

Getting back to the thread of the post, I guess it comes down to a unified understanding of what “humane” means. I think we can all agree with my initial dictionary post that

Humane: having what are considered the best qualities mankind.

The problem as I see it, is that “considered” word.

• Some folks like Jack Apples see unbounded charity as one of the great qualities of mankind.
  
  Others like myself see the nurturance of self-reliance and the maximization of human potential conjoined with the minimization of harm as one of the great qualities of mankind.
  
  Alaph and yourself see personal happiness and contentment as one of the great qualities of mankind.

And certainly everyone can agree that each view standing alone is a good and desirable trait.

The problems arise when all the possible ideas compete. The enemy of the best is the good!

Alas these are the ideals that wars are fought over and yet a singular perspective never dominates. A taxonomy, a logical ranking, does not exist. It’s a tragic situation.

I think in some part that modern Psychology and Sociology has let us down in this perspective. It seems we spend a great deal of time defining the plurality of the world. We as people expend so much effort accommodating even the most fringe attitudes and beliefs in the name of political correctness. I’d just as soon put my boot through the skulls of some of these deviants, like say the NMBLA’s, as respect their unique character.

Yet I’ve not seen much effort, beyond some etiquette books, in defining what “normal” is. I have seen even less research about the prioritization of ideals within society. Is Basketball really better than Baseball? By what standard and by how much? It seems like these social scientists are missing out on truly valuable insight.

Sorry about going too far afield with your thread, I get carried away without anyone in front of me to give me confused or tired looks when I get on these things. I’ll try to contribute in the spirit of the points you addressed. Tell me to shut up and go away if’n you want to.

To be clear, I don’t see happiness and contentment as the admirable qualities of a person. I think intending the advancement of happiness and contentment is a necessary characteristic of a “humane” person. I further think that a thinking humane person has to not only care, but also care about what works.

In order to “have the best qualities of mankind,” it is inarguable that we must intend joy and comfort for our fellow man.

For a policy or political system to be humane, then, it must surely intend an outcome that results in joy and comfort for a big chunk of humanity. For it to be more humane than the alternatives, than it either must intend more joy and comfort for more people, or (as I have been arguing) actually result in more joy and comfort.

Given man’s experience with various policies and political systems, someone who intends good outcomes must honestly come to terms with the results of prior experiments and find out what works and what doesn’t.

I think a realistic assessment of the last century gives us the insight we need to assess the humane way. It was humane to shoot Old Yeller, it would have been inhumane not to.

As far as reaching a consensus about what is good and what is not, I am not as unhopeful as you seem to be. Mankind (with the exception of some true degenerates in North Africa) has rejected slavery as evil. I feel that twenty years hence, communism will share the same fate. Baseball is good, basketball is dumb (might take more time to get consensus here, but it will come).

While “normal” may not ever be adequately defined, I believe good has more resonance in the human heart than evil. As the father of two young boys, I’ll join you in kicking in NMBLA skulls, but I’ll know it was their evil that inspired my own, not that I was good or admirable. I pay so much attention to happiness and contentment because I believe fat and happy people care about the promotion of good in the world, while poor and desperate people are often (and often excusably) vicious and evil.

Hope I have been more on target with this, thanks for your time,

Dul

"Are socialists really more humane than individualists?"

Call me crazy, but isn't this like asking which style of artistic painting, like Cubism vs. Neo-Impressionism, is "better" than the other? It's all relative to your opinions. All human societies from Family up to Governmental Federation have aspects of both to one degree or another with the exception of the two extremes of the argument: Anarchy and Pure Communism: both of which are only an ideal and never survive in the real world.

But to focus on the question at hand, is it more humane to soften how hard a societal member will fall or unimpede how high they can soar? Easy. If your society has more people falling than soaring, it is more humane to be socialist. If the opposite, then individualists are more humane. My argument being that between then socialists and individualists in a society, the minority group will drag down the majority's goals. With a majority of socialists, individuals will only get so far anyway. With a majority of individualists, socialists won’t be able to provide much protection for the underachievers anyway. Almost all real societies today have a vast majority with socialistic as opposed to individualistic tendencies, USA included. You'll notice I defined "humane" as doing the best for a society and its members as judged by the average moral convictions of that society.

What would be the most humane is to break the societies apart into two societies so people can choose the path they wish: “good enough” vs. “no limits”. A funny fictional example of this: http://fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Kr ... gafrincham. Here in our world, the most overachieving individualists will eventually flee this planet for extraterrestrial colonies of their own as they already realize that this is an unalterably socialized planet.