| > 1. It never seems to solve the problems it claims to address. When evidence against it is brought to bear, its advocates move the goal post. Sure it does. There are dozens of Western European countries where people do not go bankrupt due to medical debt, post-secondary education is free or affordable, homelessness is not a serious issue, and large portions of the population are not incarcerated. > 2. There is never an established "end state." More and more areas of life magically become "rights" and then get added to its ever increasing responsibility. Sure there is. Scandanavian countries, for the most part, have had a fairly undertstable steady-state relationship with their social safety nets for decades, with policy arguments mostly taking place on the margins. > 3. It is commonly used as a means to buy votes and sow social dissent by convincing a receiving group that a productive group wants to take their livelihood away. Creating government policy that is appealing to voters is the basis of democracy. > 4. The US government is arguably not representative enough to be tasked with providing it. The nation is too large, the people are too divided, and the political system is too corrupt. Sure. But it's probably worth trying to change that right? > 5. It relies on confiscation by the aforementioned unrepresentative entity. And those that never use it shoulder a disproportionate burden of its funding and implementation.
The idea that a social safety net is a Universal Good Thing needs to be reevaluated. Yes, it requires those who amass a disproportionate amount of the society's financial resources to shoulder a disproportionate financial burden of maintaining that society. They're still doing pretty well, go to Geneva sometime and hang out with rich people and see for yourself. |