Robert Bluey offers an experiment in wealth redistribution:
In a local restaurant my server had on an Obama 08 tie; again I laughed as he had given away his political preference – just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need – the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
One might, I think, quibble about the distinction between “deserved” and “needed,” but still, it’s worth some reflection.
(h/t, The Thin Man)
David
“Well, left-leaning people often do say that, or something like that, though generally without explaining *how* the example is skewed or simplistic.”
I think that my friend did indicate quite clearly why he felt that the example was “skewed or simplistic”. He did this by asking me how many people were like Miss B, and how many examples I could offer to prove the point. I offered none, though I could have offered maybe half a dozen examples. You suggest that you could have countered with “dozens” and, you added “ many of the people I know have known dozens too”. In fairness, though, you couldn’t claim that this was a “representative” sample and neither could I. Is it not fair to say, then, that my friend’s accusation remains unrefuted?
Horace,
I’d suggest your friend is missing my point, which doesn’t depend on exact numbers and doesn’t depend on whether or not Miss B is representative. (You’ll note I never claimed she is.) Again, my point is one of attitude and principle, not quantity, and it’s one which has obvious bearing on notions of justice, social or otherwise. My point isn’t (and never has been) to suggest that Miss B is typical, though she certainly isn’t rare. And one could argue that Miss B’s selfish and parasitic attitude is reinforced and excused by somewhat loaded and selective arguments about “social justice” – arguments which may then encourage others to follow her example.
The nub of the point I’m making is that “social justice” isn’t the exclusive entitlement of those who receive welfare, deservingly or otherwise. Those footing the bill have claims to justice too.
“The nub of the point I’m making is that “social justice” isn’t the exclusive entitlement of those who receive welfare, deservingly or otherwise. Those footing the bill have claims to justice too.”
Indeed. This point is well made and welcome. I recognise that you used the hypothetical example of Mr A and Miss B to highlight the fact that those who plead for “social justice” often (or, in fact, usually) fail to accept that Mr A could also be entitled to “social justice”.
What you’re getting at here (correct me if I’m wrong) is that Mr A is not some pitiless plutocrat. He doesn’t own a yacht, nor a football team. He doesn’t sun himself in Tuscany and he isn’t photographed when he comes out of night clubs. He’s a dull bird, but he does provide for himself and his family and he doesn’t expect a medal (or any recognition) for this (which is just as well as he won’t get it).
But with Miss B we have a problem. Miss B is selfish, feckless and arrogant (Oh the baggage! I know her so well) but is she really indicative of the problem?
Let me remould Miss B. She’s got lovely teeth thanks to an obliging state (which spends Mr A’s money to guarantee the beauty of her smile) but she cannot work because she’s bringing up two children on her own. The children’s father left her a year ago. In short, she’s stuck. She doesn’t have the freedom that many of us enjoy.
Now, if you’d chosen my Miss B, rather than yours (the flighty thing), there’d be a bit of a shift. We could still wonder about the justice of taxing hard-working Mr A in order to subsidise her, but I suspect that we’d be less likely to agree that “Mr A [is] entitled to feel just a little pissed off with this arrangement”.
My Miss B is as hypothetical as yours, of course. But I wonder whose Miss B is closest to reality. Your point remains valid, of course, whichever Miss B one chooses.
Horace,
Nicely summarised. I’m glad you see I’m not saying more than I actually am. As it were.
“But with Miss B we have a problem. Miss B is selfish, feckless and arrogant (Oh the baggage! I know her so well) but is she really indicative of the problem?”
Well, we could, as you suggest, recast her in slightly more favourable terms, adding a glow of tragedy and victimhood, supposedly in order to make her a little more typical. But I suspect Mr A would still be entitled to feel pissed off. After all, shouldn’t Miss B’s children be supported by their father? Isn’t that his responsibility, first and foremost? Is he entitled to surrender his parental duties in this way? We could, of course, recast Miss B yet again, dialing up the tragic element. Let’s say the father of her children died while rescuing kittens from a burning building. Well, now our expectations change again. And we could go on doing this for some time. It might be entertaining.
But remember, I’m not arguing against welfare provision per se. Earlier in this thread I referred to a social safety net as a marker of civilisation. And I’m not suggesting Miss B (my Miss B) is representative; merely common enough to raise the original question. I’m primarily interested in how terms like “social justice” and “selfish” are used selectively, and how the term “selfish” almost never refers to the behaviour of Miss B (or her absent partner), though it’s selfishness par excellence. And common enough to warrant some attention.
I should clarify the last paragraph above. The “almost never” refers to those who most often use terms like “social justice” and who appear to define selfishness in fairly… selective ways.
“In the latest example, a Nigerian mother-of-five is living in a five bedroom, detached house with an annual rent of £25,000 paid for by taxpayers… Government rules entitle Mrs Odia, who has been in the UK for 10 years, to live in a five-bedroom house. She lives off benefits and has not been in contact with her husband, who remains in Nigeria, for at least three years.
More than £4billion of taxpayers’ money is being spent on housing benefit across London – an increase of more than 40 per cent in five years, the Evening Standard can reveal. The new figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show £4.15 billion spent on housing benefit across London’s 32 boroughs with a further £670 million paid in council tax in the 12 months ending last April. More than £250 million in housing benefit was paid out to Newham residents alone. The housing benefit bill now exceeds £100 million in 21 out of 32 boroughs. On top of the £4.15 billion benefits bill, the DWP also pays the council tax for families on benefit, a bill which has also risen in the past five years from £435 million to £670 million in London. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Too little is being done to reduce the bill by helping people become self-reliant. The principle of housing benefit should be that it is a safety net designed to help you get back on your feet, not an automatic life-long provision, no questions asked.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23584345-details/Taxpayers+foot+soaring+bill+for+keeping+homeless+in+private+houses/article.do
Gaffee,
Thanks for that.
The question, I suppose, is whether it’s possible to provide some assistance to those in genuine misfortune without also rewarding (and thus encouraging) patterns of behaviour that lead to failure and irresponsibility, and ultimately to expectations of ever more subsidy. This touches on another question – of what one thinks taxation is for. Is it to fund certain infrastructure projects and provide a basic, conditional safety net? Or is to narrow the difference between richest and poorest, supposedly on principle and with a whiff of moral correction?