This post is incomplete, but I thought I would get it out here as a work in progress. Comments are welcome.
I recently heard Paul Ryan giving an interview in which he talked about 'civil society' and during which he mentioned that charities and religious institutions should function as a social safety net rather than 'government.' The problem with Ryan's view is that we have imperfect institutions at every level. To shrink the role of government in the sphere of social welfare will not result in a corresponding increase in the level of social welfare that private institutions provide. The question of social welfare is not an either/or proposition. The reason the government increased its role in providing for the social welfare of the populace is that the private institutions of civil society were not adequately providing for the social welfare of the populace. Government is by nature imperfect, but so are the institutions of civil society.
The defining characteristic of the institutions of civil society is their voluntary nature. Citizens do not have to belong to a church or contribute to charity. When citizens decide to belong to a church or contribute to charity, they can choose which church to join and to which charity they wish to contribute. The nature of civil society requires that an individuals relations with its institutions be voluntary. If the relationship is not voluntary, the institution ceases to be part of civil society and becomes a quasi-state actor. The problem with the voluntary nature of civil society association is that no one institution will have the overarching concern for the social welfare of all as its primary focus or will not have the resources to provide social welfare for all.
A quick aside: I accept the fact that actually providing for the social welfare of all is impossible in the real world. We have competing social, commercial, and political interests that render any dream of providing for everyone Utopian. The libertarian impulse will never fully be squelched, which is frankly a good thing. There will always be a tension between public and private life that will require compromises in how the benefits and income of any given society is distributed. The compromises may lean left or right, but regardless they will result in imperfect provision of social welfare benefits. The goal should be to maximize the provision of social welfare benefits to minimize conditions of deprivation consistent with the core principles of social and individual responsibility.
Government occupies a unique position in society: it is the one institution that has the capacity to require citizens to act or refrain from acting. While we cleave to the principle of self-determination and hold dear the idea that the power of government comes from the people, we, as individuals, surrender our self-determination, at least in part, to the sovereignty of the state. Government thus has the power to compel, the power of legislation and enforcement of the laws. Having the power to compel action or inaction, government is the only institution in society that can effectively provide social welfare benefits to maximize the common good. The preferences of voluntary association does not bind the government nor does ecclesiastical tenets limit the provision of government services. In short, the government can look at society and use its powers of legislation and enforcement to limit the conditions of deprivation for all members of society. Civil society lacks the power, authority, and capacity to do the same.
The Ryan idea seems to be that there is an inverse relationship between government and charities in terms of the provision of social welfare benefits. There is also a Hobbesian aspect to Ryan's position which simply accepts that society has winners and losers, some of whom will endure conditions of privation. The fact of the matter is that history demonstrates that no such inverse relationship exists. The reason government became involved in the provision of social welfare benefits was the broad consensus that civil society did not and could not adequately provide for the poor and vulnerable in society. The earliest progressive reforms like maximum hour laws, child labor laws, and worker's compensation laws exemplify the belief among a majority of Americans that civil society was not protecting poor and vulnerable citizens. Coupled with the largess generated through the industrial revolution, government could legislate and enforce the provision of social welfare benefits for those whom civil society failed. Surely some charitable and religious institutions scaled back their provision of social welfare benefits because of government intervention, but the gross level of benefits provided increased considerably when government intervened. Charitable and religious institutions did not reduce their provision of social welfare benefits in direct proportion to the government intervention.
Government legislation and enforcement of the provision of social welfare benefits did not become the panacea many progressives and liberals wanted it to become. Nevertheless, government provision of social welfare benefits certainly had net positive effects. We err if we assume government provision of social welfare benefits fails when it does not achieve ideal results. This would be like saying that a play failed because it only yielded a first down when the ideal result was a touchdown. Incremental improvement in the actual lives of American citizens demonstrates that social welfare programs were and are effective. Success or failure cannot be measured in absolute terms but rather ought to be judged based on the practical effects on the actual lives of citizens and residents.
When evaluating the role of government in providing social welfare benefits, we should use a reasoned approach to analyze the costs and benefits of a given program. If the net benefits outweigh the costs, the program should be deemed a success. We do, however, encounter persons who oppose any form of government provision of social welfare benefits. Such persons should not deign to criticize the effectiveness of a given program unless they are willing to use a reasoned cost-benefit analysis. If such persons criticize a program because of philosophical reasons, they should so state their objection and say no more unless they can demonstrate through reasoned analysis that a particular program has more costs than the benefits it provides.
No comments:
Post a Comment