In Defense of Social Programming
Capitalism is competition at its best. We can all agree that real competition is where everyone gets a shot to compete. Therefore, in order for us to have the strongest capitalistic society, all citizens must have access to the mostbasicof social programs--education and health care (I will not discuss healthcare, however, see the bottom note).* Unfortunately, we do not have a system that adequately supplies its community with the tools it needs. With social programs, then, we are filling in the gaps where we, as citizens in a largersocial contract, have failed. I would like to know how many welfare mothers would abuse the system if they had grown up believing that they had a right to be educated and that their education would have meaning and purpose in thepractical world. Of course, it is true that there will always be people who will exploit the system. However, this exploitation is less likely to occur when people earnestly believe they have a chance at making an honest and decentliving.* The current situation in the lower classes is that the youth see little opportunity for advancement and become normalized in a culture ofviolence, crime, unemployment, etc.
And if you think there is no link between employment and crime on a sociallevel; take a look at the Gaza Strip and the West Bank where incidents of domestic violence have risen due to (largely) male frustration over not being
able to find work after Israeli sanctions. Men steal because they have nothing to lose--apparently they abuse their wives for similar reasons.
Until we shrink the gap between those for whom education is assumed and thosefor whom education is an impossible reach, until we erase a culture ofdiscrimination--social programming is our burden. We are only cleaning up the mess that we (with failed public schooling and prejudice) have created.
And, I don't believe these things are impossible. Our society has made it so that there are at least as many female students as male students at Wash U and colleges all over the country--this would have been inconceivable a few decades ago. What seemed like a liberal fantasy has become a conventional reality.
As far as social programs other than schooling, most help to reduce crime, health risks (free STD testing, vaccinations--particularly important becausethey protect us against illnesses that we do not have to consent to anything inorder to acquire them), and societal disorder (organizations for the mentally ill, disabled, etc). The aim of all social programming should ultimately be tobring the peoplein as productive members of society, so that we can draw on all of our human resources, instead of leaving persons as dead weight, benefiting no one.* That someone would say that we are de-evolving is a curious thing,particularly, because we are, on the whole, being better educated, healthier,and more stable societies. We have not permitted the fittest from surviving, or the weakest from dying, we have made it that the pool of the fittest can belarger than it once was, so that the swimmers have a real race ahead of them;and so that the weakest die not loudly in the deep, clogging up the lanes, but quietly in the shallow end, allowing the oveall competition to progress.
[Of course, thisentire argument presumes that the person has agreed to become
part of our social contract--and if you have, you cannot accept the benefits
without the responsibility].
*However, I recognize that public health care is quite problematic--socialized health care gives doctors little incentive to effectively treat their patientsand it stems the tide of medical technology. No quick fix for that one.
* The state of Kas (and possibly others?) has revamped its welfare to aworkfare program where the participants are required to work to earn theirliving--boosting their resume'--so that they will continue to be employed after
the system discharges them. I believe they also offer some vocationaleducation opportunities, but I would have to check. Either way, they have acertain period of time to get on their feet and then the program drops them, no matter how many children they have, no matter what the excuse.
*Obviously programs for the mentally ill, and permanently disabled cannot bringpeople in to society, but the alternative is blind, deaf, and mentally incapacitated persons roaming the streets, so I think the society simply has to eat it on this one. You could also make an argument that these persons in the
general atmosphere inhibit productivity with acts of crime, violence, etc.
And if you think there is no link between employment and crime on a sociallevel; take a look at the Gaza Strip and the West Bank where incidents of domestic violence have risen due to (largely) male frustration over not being
able to find work after Israeli sanctions. Men steal because they have nothing to lose--apparently they abuse their wives for similar reasons.
Until we shrink the gap between those for whom education is assumed and thosefor whom education is an impossible reach, until we erase a culture ofdiscrimination--social programming is our burden. We are only cleaning up the mess that we (with failed public schooling and prejudice) have created.
And, I don't believe these things are impossible. Our society has made it so that there are at least as many female students as male students at Wash U and colleges all over the country--this would have been inconceivable a few decades ago. What seemed like a liberal fantasy has become a conventional reality.
As far as social programs other than schooling, most help to reduce crime, health risks (free STD testing, vaccinations--particularly important becausethey protect us against illnesses that we do not have to consent to anything inorder to acquire them), and societal disorder (organizations for the mentally ill, disabled, etc). The aim of all social programming should ultimately be tobring the peoplein as productive members of society, so that we can draw on all of our human resources, instead of leaving persons as dead weight, benefiting no one.* That someone would say that we are de-evolving is a curious thing,particularly, because we are, on the whole, being better educated, healthier,and more stable societies. We have not permitted the fittest from surviving, or the weakest from dying, we have made it that the pool of the fittest can belarger than it once was, so that the swimmers have a real race ahead of them;and so that the weakest die not loudly in the deep, clogging up the lanes, but quietly in the shallow end, allowing the oveall competition to progress.
[Of course, thisentire argument presumes that the person has agreed to become
part of our social contract--and if you have, you cannot accept the benefits
without the responsibility].
*However, I recognize that public health care is quite problematic--socialized health care gives doctors little incentive to effectively treat their patientsand it stems the tide of medical technology. No quick fix for that one.
* The state of Kas (and possibly others?) has revamped its welfare to aworkfare program where the participants are required to work to earn theirliving--boosting their resume'--so that they will continue to be employed after
the system discharges them. I believe they also offer some vocationaleducation opportunities, but I would have to check. Either way, they have acertain period of time to get on their feet and then the program drops them, no matter how many children they have, no matter what the excuse.
*Obviously programs for the mentally ill, and permanently disabled cannot bringpeople in to society, but the alternative is blind, deaf, and mentally incapacitated persons roaming the streets, so I think the society simply has to eat it on this one. You could also make an argument that these persons in the
general atmosphere inhibit productivity with acts of crime, violence, etc.