Resolved: The State Ought Not Provide Welfare.Guest: Tom Palmer

[ce...@yale.edu]

YALE POLITICAL UNION
FLOOR MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 2005 - WLH 208

The Speaker calls the meeting to order at 7:45 pm.

The chairmen make their announcements.

The President welcomes everyone and apologizes for the small room.
Introduces the night's guest, Mr. Tom Palmer. He is a senior fellow
at the Cato Institute. He will be talking about welfare from a
libertarian point of view. Many times we talk about
implementation...but why do we have it in the first place?

The President of the Yale Political Union moves the topic Resolved: The
State Ought Not Provide Welfare.

Mr. Palmer takes the floor and admits that he doesn't want to
convince anyone in the room that he's simply right. Wants to be more
cautious...plant a seed of doubt. Some day they might grow in to oak
trees. Talks about the role of state in society. We see totalitarian
government as a thing of the past. In contrast, the welfare state has
grown. Not going to present an anarchist case. Government should
provide justice, defense, and provision of pure public goods (things
that market can't provide). Should the state be responsible for my
well-being? Is it a government responsibility to make people happy?
Begins with constitutional discussion. Welfare can be found in
constitution. The phrase, "to promote the general welfare", is
found in Article I, Section 8. Congress has an enumerated list of
powers. General welfare is contrasted with particular welfare. An
action of the state has to be something that helps everyone, not just a
specific person or group. Those who say that welfare is in the
Constitution, should pay more attention to "meaning". Why have
Article I, Section 8 or the 9th and 10th Amendments? We've seen the
state take on powers with the excuse that they are "good for us".
How good would it be to have a "cuddly" world? It would be great
if Tom Palmer would always be happy and always have friends. Who was
the architect of welfare? The Iron Chancellor! Draws a picture.
Bismarck was explicit in what he wanted in welfare. Said that someone
who is given welfare is happier and easier to handle. Goal was to make
Germans dependent on state. Wants to see how many people count on
getting social security or rather, how many dumb people are there?
What do Barney and Fred (Flintstones) do? Go bowling with their Lodge
brothers! Almost all Americans did this. Friendly societies are
almost all completely gone. Why? Modern commercial insurance, more
importantly, was made redundant by welfare state. When people needed
help, lodge brothers/sisters came to their aid. African Americans were
more likely to be members of these organizations. They were backbone
of civil rights movement, along with churches (only thing that remains
that's like the lodge). In Britain, they built hospitals. Wiped out
by welfare state. British think they have the finest medical system in
the planet. Doesn't know what planet they're on. Best country to
be in when you're sick, is the US. Welfare also affects moral
character. Nephew decided that he wouldn't buy health insurance
because he can always go to the county hospital because they have to
take care of him. People ask why they should be responsible when other
people can take care of them. Raz and Waldron developed an interest
theory of rights. A right is a strong interest that holds someone else
responsible for that interest. But, as interests conflict, rights
conflict. Rights are no longer something you can stand on. Rights
become dynamical in character, therefore, obligations of others change.
People support food stamps...seem noble. Why is food so expensive?
Same people support farm subsidies. Republicans are guiltiest of this.
Tariffs on Canadian lumber make housing more expensive...same people
vote for Section 8. Finally, talks about the nature of happiness?
Happiness isn't getting more stuff (but he's pro stuff)! Aristotle
says happiness is an activity in accordance w/ human virtue. Happy
life is an accomplishment, not something someone else can give you.
There's a reason we talk about "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of
happiness". Welfare state robs us of this.

Mr. Silas Kulkarni says that it's nice in theory. But practically,
welfare gives them the means to pursue happiness.
Palmer: agrees that worst thing rich people can do is provide kids with
trust fund. With capital comes responsibility. Result of the state
welfare is like a trust fund. It would be interesting if we gave
people $80,000. Social security is a fraud. For those hissing...go
back and remember arithmetic. If he set up a system like that, he'd
be in prison. Economist said that social security is taking money from
poor black men to give to old white women...they live forever! Worst
part is that there's no capital at the end of it. Not given
resources to live a happy life...you're given just enough to be
dependent.

Mr. Daniel Thies submits that welfare may have had another founder...a
Tory, Benjamin Disraeli. He talked about a more limited welfare.
Palmer: there's a kind of conservative welfare state. Tory Party (in
Britain, not YPU) had idea of a hierarchical society. They campaigned
against railroad...too many people moving around! While in Britain, he
found a village idiot complaining that they were shooting bunnies.
Learned that British people seem to be amazingly polite but they're
not...they're good at humiliating people without them knowing.

The Floorleader of the Left, Ms. Startz, agrees that happiness is
something we do, not a state of being. But, the choices and ability to
take action is constrained. Wants Mr. Palmer to talk about happiness,
but taking ability into account.
Palmer: mentions studies on income mobility. Always, 20% of population
is in the bottom quintile. How do they do in time? People that remain
at the lowest are those that have been addicted to welfare for multiple
generations. Our poverty level isn't bad compared to that of other
countries. We didn't always have a permanent bottom class...why?
Dependency on welfare state! If you do 3 things, chances of being poor
are almost nonexistent: graduate from high school, don't have a baby
if you're not married, get any job and hold it for a year. These
things are under our control.

The President of the Yale Political Union moves that we thank Mr.
Palmer for a fine speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union.

The first speech in the negative is given by the Director of Campus
Relations, Roger Low. He says that Bismarck wasn't such a bad guy!
Perturbed by what he just heard. It was a frontal attack on welfare
state. Living on just welfare is not something that makes people
happy. There's a sense that people are being lazy. There are things
that can make life difficult. Let's look at history. Is anyone
going to argue that poor are worse off than post-1930? Communism
gained traction because people saw that capitalism brought suffering.
Not everyone is born in ideal situation. Only some have enough
motivation to get out of a bad situation. Palmer said it's best to
be in the US when sick...but only if you're rich! If you're poor,
it's best to be in Europe. The Economist just had an article that
says that economic mobility is decreasing. Welfare is about giving
people opportunity. Doesn't support indefinite welfare. Welfare is
vital to keeping democracy and capitalism alive.

Mr. Benjamin Darrington asks if we would still need welfare if everyone
were part of a friendly society.
Low: the problem with friendly societies is that all the members are in
the same bad situation and can't help much. Sorry PoR, you might
have to care about others.

Mr Piotr Prosol notes that the Chinese say that if you're on the
floor, use the floor to pick yourself up. Aren't people more likely
to show determination to get off of the floor if they have nothing,
instead of being able to live off government?
Low: if you're really at the bottom, you can steal. If all you do is
work, you don't have time or energy to move out of that situation.
Thinks that we need to get people off of welfare...this was a success
of the Clinton administration.

The Vice President, Ms. Lia Oksman, says that given the crime rate in
New Haven, does he think that people in ghetto that are on welfare are
less motivated to steal?
Low: yes...

The Chairman of the Party of the Right asks if he values competition or
equality?
Low: there is such a disparity between bottom and top. Both values are
important. Need to pull the top down and bring the bottom up...more
equality makes it easier to have economic mobility and competition.

Speaking in the affirmative, Mr. Jay Schweikert says that the debate is
about fish. Welfare is giving a man a fish. Difference between his
philosophical belief and what he thinks is practical. Politically
infeasible to get rid of welfare. Believes that government should
provide for welfare of people, but welfare state is a bad way to do
this. Welfare is an incentive problem. Mitigates willingness to
achieve own success. Welfare and capitalism are at odds. Welfare is a
slap in the face to the American dream. Welfare is a tax on success
and subsidy of poverty. We should ask what else we can do with money?
Admires FDR's New Deal, but thinks it should've been emergency
relief. To say that we need welfare, is degrading to human potential.
To say that we don't need it, is to trust it.

Ms. Jennifer Sarah Bolton asks why it's infeasible to remove welfare
state and how one can believe in a philosophy and not find it
practical?
Schweikert: thinks that practically, it can't be removed immediately.
If we try to remove it, it would face enormous opposition. We dug
ourselves in a pretty bad hole...we should try to move away from it.

Mr. Dave Kasten focuses on the notion of emergency relief...why not
include going into inner city public schools or getting jobs into the
emergency category?
Schweikert: if you gave money to people that are born in bad
situations, it wouldn't help much. When talking about emergencies,
he means things like Katrina.

The President says that there's a problem with idea that welfare is
patronizing...doesn't see it a bad thing given the alternative.
Schweikert: someone that is told that you can't achieve American
dream on your own isn't going to do it after they're being taken
care of. Without safety net, they have no choice but to provide for
themselves.

With a speech in the negative, Mr. David Price says that there will
always be unemployment and poor people in capitalism. They will suffer
if we don't help. Unless you don't care, the question isn't
should we help, but how. Speaker talked about lodges...too idealistic.
Lodges will be unequal. Real question: is there any reason why
government shouldn't give welfare! If there's no way to live,
government should give me a check so I survive. People think that
money is deserved...people inherit it sometimes. Do people deserve to
suffer? If we can force people to give money to alleviate suffering,
we need to do that.

A gentleman asks what justification can Mr. Price give that private
donations are insufficient?
Price: doesn't think rich people would do it. Possible...but
doesn't know psychology. Virtue of government is that it's there
for the people.

Mr. Will Wilson supposes that he's rich...so does government have the
right to take my stuff away? How is that for the people? Seems like
it's robbing me.
Price: ok...it won't benefit EVERYONE. Sending cops to LA doesn't
help him (lives in DC), but it's a good thing for many.
Wilson: but I don't believe that, so isn't that a violation on a
greater degree?
Price: government doesn't always do what we believe in...it's how
it works!

Mr. Darrington asks if he got 25% of population to vote on a referendum
to dance on Mr. Price's grave, is that ok?
Price: if law is so against me, I guess I'd be against it too...

The Chairman of the Conservative Party says that if the right to the
minority is protected, how can you take away right of the minority that
has more property?
Price: protected in some way. Rights of some minorities will always be
denied.

Mr. Andrew Stegmaier asks Mr. Price to address the problem that welfare
keeps people persistently poor.
Price: The people that are always poor are suffering because there's
always unemployment. Concedes that economy will not be as good if you
have welfare. It's ok if it's slightly less efficient.

The Chair of the Liberal Party moves that we thank Mr. Price for a fine
maiden speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union.

Ms. Helen Rittelmeyer gives the next speech in the affirmative. On
principle, she's ok if government takes her money for good. But,
welfare isn't a common good. She has required charity many
times...she has been given fish and isn't dependent. It wasn't
patronizing. Reason is that she received this from people that
actually cared. If she failed, she had to look at people in the face
and admit that. It was also conditional. They could say that they
wouldn't help anymore. Government welfare is impersonal and
indiscriminate. Doesn't teach charity and doesn't do good for
poor. It corrupts people. Government charity is not worth having.

Ms. Alexandra Charrow asks Ms. Rittelmeyer to talk about immigrants and
welfare.
Rittelmeyer: Tells the body that he sister is retarded...is fine with
state giving her money because she's incapable of making her own.
Immigrants don't qualify.

Mr. Low doesn't understand why welfare needs to be edifying. Point
is redistribution. Supposed to provide stability.
Rittelmeyer: In a crisis, opinion might be different. 12% Americans
under poverty line. People are able to get by...it's not a crisis.

A gentleman asks about people that REALLY do need it...should they
starve?
Rittelmeyer: friendly societies were killed by welfare state...thinks
that if we eliminate welfare, they'd rise up again.

The Chairman of the Party of the Right wonders if the reason why people
look for government help is because it's less degrading than getting
help from family.
Rittelmeyer: thinks that's adolescent embarrassment. Degradation of
impersonal system is worse.

Ms. Zhang gives the next speech in the negative. People have been
focusing on the historical. It's a matter of choice. At some level,
good government is representative of people. We can choose to live in
a world where people just fend for themselves. Or, a world where
we're all dependent. Prefers to live in 2nd world...feels sorry for
those who prefer the 1st. Most arguments against welfare are about
program. Better if you frame it by telling people that they have
potential, but not resources. Her family got welfare in Britain...were
in bottom 5%. Disagrees that welfare is degrading. Why should we rely
on private organizations for this? Many are very badly run.

Mr. William Cass talks about the difference between communitarian and
free society. In free societies, there's a stronger sense of
community. In the USSR: imposition of community. Comments?
Zhang: doesn't think that US has a stronger sense of community than
Scandinavian countries.

Mr. Palmer asks if Ms. Zhang would feel the same way if evidence showed
that trying to make a communitarian society had opposite effect.
Example: Germany.
Zhang: Cause of so much German unemployment isn't necessarily
welfare.

The Chair of the Liberal Party moves that we thank Ms. Zhang for a fine
maiden speech on floor of the Yale Political Union.

In the affirmative, Ms. Kerri Price tells the body that when her dad
received first welfare check, he didn't want to even look at it.
Blames Bob Taft for higher taxes and more welfare. Worked at a grocery
store...1/3 of people used food stamps. Kids get to dress in and buy
expensive things with welfare. A woman said that she was so happy to
have welfare and that her kids would be on welfare. It is
degrading...there's no shame. Mr. Price (no relation), doesn't
think he deserves his money, but she would be glad to take his money!
It's great that liberals want to give away money, but she shouldn't
be forced to.

A gentleman is sure that some people are insulted. But some feel
appreciative. It's a huge help for some. It's not a problem for
them.
Price: Ohio has a well-funded WIC program...one of the greatest things.
It allows mothers to provide for their kids with coupons...temporary
solution. This isn't causing a tax burden. It's good to have
programs for emergency situations...not excessive.

Ms. Lindsay Bliss asks where we draw the line between good and
excessive? How do we find a line that people won't object to?
Price: it's a problem with welfare. Cases when it's good are rare.
In some cases, it's ok.

Mr. Thies gives the next speech in the negative. Teddy Roosevelt said
we should not care so much about class interests. Policies on the
right have been unduly prejudiced for high class and corporations.
Welfare is something that should be done if it's in national
interest. Wants to go back to Tory thought. If we look at 19th
century Britain, we find laissez-faire but also a lot of poverty.
Recognized that industrialized society wasn't good if there was a
separation between the top and bottom. Understood that when government
is formed, system of shared rights and obligations is created. Extreme
cases lead to revolution. Can lead to fundamental dissatisfaction,
which leads to crime and disorder.

The Floorleader of the Left asks if Mr. Thies thinks that preserving
hierarchy is good? Keep the bottom from starving, but class gap is
still huge.
Thies: isn't saying that current US welfare state is good, but is
against resolution. Would cut many programs. Not a bad thing to have
a society where best people govern...good hierarchy. Not completely
egalitarian.

Mr. Palmer asks if claim behind the old Tory view is vulnerable to
statistics?
Thies: has learned that statistics are a type of lie.

Speaking in the affirmative, Mr. Prosol says:

The Floorleader of the Left says that no one denies that poor people
are better off than before. But could we be doing things that could
make things better?
Prosol: refer to diagram 2.

Mr. Noah Mamis asks if according to the Prosol Theory, if we eliminate
welfare, we eliminate poverty?
Prosol: doesn't think poverty really exists. Unemployment: people
change jobs. Very bad stats. People don't need welfare because
system rewards talent and determination.

The Chairman of the Conservative Party says that if feudalism doesn't
lead to economic growth, how did it happen after the Renaissance?
Prosol: didn't mean to draw the line so flat. Now it's much
better.

The Chairman of the Conservative Party is glad that the ups and down in
feudal system are shown, but wants to see the fluctuations in
capitalist system. Stability control...need greater
consistency...that's the question we need to answer.
Prosol: Keynes shows how to stabilize curve, but not necessarily
through programs.

Ms. Lily Dorman-Colby gives a rebuttal. Explains what it's like to
live in poverty and welfare. We can't apply our morals and logic on
others lifestyles. Lived in a very bad neighborhood. Appreciated
welfare...didn't think it was wrong. Wouldn't have gotten food
without food stamps. Not receiving them wouldn't have been an
improvement. Explains that it's difficult to perform the 3 things
that Mr. Palmer mentioned. Doesn't believe we're living the
American dream...it's an idea of meritocracy. There isn't a direct
correlation between working hard and doing well. Not many people can
get out of bad situation. Welfare is important because it gives kids a
chance to do well. Need to improve educational system so people learn
how to fish.

The Vice President says that there were her and her friends...yet she
is here and friends are back there. Doesn't it indicate that there
are issues that welfare doesn't address that lead to these results?
Dorman-Colby: she was lucky to be moved around and be with people that
were educationally motivated.

The Floorleader of the Right notes that the lady said there was a
low-percentage yield. Why invest in this?
Dorman-Colby: thinks that welfare should be refined. Need to make
things available for all...like education. Welfare doesn't cover it
all. Drugs and other things pull people back. Welfare addresses need
for food.

The Vice President of the Yale Political Union then speaks in the
affirmative. She says that welfare doesn't prevent revolution.
Things that lead to rebellion are bad things done by government. If
we're talking about a 15 year old deciding to have sex, she needs to
be aware that there are consequences. Regrettable, but what type of
person are you becoming if you're not responsible? Capital
accumulation made things better for poor, not welfare. Some say that
rich people owe back to society. If anyone should be paying for
protection from the government, it's the poor people.

The final speech of the night is in the negative and is given by Mr.
Matthew Grant. Saying that people have complete control over destiny
isn't true. Everyone in this room is flawed. Just because you go to
Yale doesn't mean you'll be successful. If you're willing to
receive help, you need to give help. Thinks families took care of each
other, not friendly societies. Government is only remaining
institution so it needs to step in.

The Chairman of the Party of the Right says that some believe that
welfare leads to the breakdown of families.
Grant: doesn't think that's true.

Mr. Schweikert doesn't think anyone argue that help is bad. There
are other ways beside government that provides this.
Grant: Do you give money to homeless people? I don't and you
probably don't either. Private charities failed.

The Chairman of the Party of the Right moves the previous question.
Withdraws.

Closing Remarks: Tom Palmer
Says that the night was entertaining and enlightening...authentic
discourse! Suggestions: Look at website for the Institute for Humane
Studies: www.theihs.org. Wants to clarify something about the
character of welfare state: poverty reduction programs are small
portion of welfare state. There are transfers from poverty to rich.
Horrible legacy of FDR...one of the worst presidents! Student loans:
overwhelmingly are transfers in middle class. Germany: free universal
university education, but only people with parents go to college...poor
people pay for it. Inner city schools are failing. Why? DC public
school is like radiation...the longer the exposure, the worse the
effects. Thank the teachers union!

The Chairman of the Party of the Right moves the previous question.
With a vote of:
Affirmative: 18
Negative: 19
Abstention: 1

The motion narrowly fails.

The Chairman of the Conservative Party moves that we adjourn.

Respectfully submitted,
Maria Gabriela Orochena
Secretary of the Yale Political Union