All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
22:01
Helping the Poor: Analyzing a Banana Republic
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Mollier from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope that you're doing very well.
Do not be alarmed by the distance here.
This does not mean this is going to be a shouty podcast, but rather that I am just attempting to improve the sound quality a little bit and get rid of the breathing.
I'd like to go over a very interesting idea, and I think a very, very important one.
This is one of the ones that if you can get this, if you can, and I don't mean to sound condescending because it took me like 20 years, right?
But if you can get this, if I can find a way to wedge this idea into your head, then this is one of those real, illuminating, illuminating ideas that can just...
Answer so many questions for you and give you such a blinding light of clarity.
It's almost like the glare from the forehead.
So, anyway, let's step through it and hopefully this will make you say, I'm going to try and keep this quick.
Personal challenge. The question arises quite continually around the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the old, the sick, the people who in a free society cannot fend for themselves, who are facing the kinds of challenges and the kinds of difficulties that Saying to them, you should just toughen up and bootstrap your way out of this situation, to me, would be entirely unfair and unjust.
So I'd like to just very, very quickly go over how you can answer these questions in your own head without having to run to statistics, without having to run to endless arguments about the historical effects of various forms of statism and all this, that, and the other.
I'd like to just give you that tool so that you can answer these very, very rapidly.
And statism very quickly turns into a kind of Ptolemaic astronomical system, right?
So if you know anything about the history of astronomy, I mean, if you didn't get that many dates as a teenager, say, because I, well, we don't have to go there.
But let's just say that in the ancient world, they would talk about all of the orbits of the planets being a perfect circle.
And they had a problem, of course, with the retrograde motion of Mars, as I've mentioned before in a few podcasts, which is that when the Earth goes around the Sun, when it accelerates past Mars, Mars attempts, seems to go backwards and then goes forward.
So Mars does this orbit where it goes backwards and then it goes forward, and this could not be explained with a perfect circle.
So Tullaby and astronomers since him until Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler.
I would explain this by saying there were circles within circles within circles within circles.
And it got insanely complicated to try and figure out where a planet was using these massive stacks of Ptolemaic calculations.
When you put the Sun at the center of the solar system and you allowed for the orbits of the planets to become elliptical, it all clicked into place.
And I would like to suggest that what I'm about to share with you here will do the same thing for your political viewpoints So much money, you're going to donate a kidney, I promise.
So, so much time and money.
So, let's go through this real quick.
Let's accept as a basic and central fact That there are people in society who are unable to help themselves, and reasonably so.
Like, not the guy who went and blew his paycheck at the racetrack and then says, it cries poverty and demands charity.
We're not talking about those people.
We're talking about genuine, absolute, real, necessary cases where charity is reasonable and fair and just and moral and good and so on.
In my opinion, this is not an insignificant portion of society.
I mean, there are... People who give birth to kids who have defects.
There are people who have chronic health problems and maybe can't work.
There are people who suffer from debilitating psychological ailments.
There are people who have long-term malingering or lingering illnesses and so on.
There are people who, through no fault of their own, are born into poor or abusive or destructive families.
There are people who are raised in such corrupt and abusive environments that they don't learn basic skills of negotiation and self-protection.
A large part of this, of course, is completely accidental.
I mean, this is something that we should really get right up front on the table because this is a core concern and a core rationality behind the existence of the state.
And so I want to put all of that right up front.
I'm not going to try and bypass it and just say, well, it's minority or most people bring it on themselves.
I mean, I believe that there are real concerns.
Charity cases, people who need the help of other people in society.
And it's not insignificant.
It's not their fault.
You know, if you happen to be born to Bill and Melinda Gates, you get one kind of life.
If you happen to be born to, you know, Joe Drunken Wifebeater, you get another kind of life.
It's certainly not your fault.
Now, John Rawls, a Harvard philosopher, has...
This argument, which I have a podcast about, you can find it looking through the Philosophysician at freedomainradio.com.
You can just do the filter for Rawls, R-A-W-L-S. And he basically says, well, if you were floating in ether before you were born and you looked down at the world and you didn't know where you were going to be born, You would not want a purely communistic or fascistic society where you would be guaranteed cradle-to-grave security because you may be intelligent and ambitious and capable and so on.
On the other hand, you wouldn't want a society where it was a complete dog-eat-dog, stereotypical, capitalistic universe where, you know, if you just happen to be born disabled or somewhat slow or whatever, with certain, you know, autism or some sort of forms of ADD or whatever...
Then you're just, you know, you're pushing brooms for the rest of your life and you're living a life of economic uncertainty and so on.
So, of course, he said, well, we want certain aspects of the free market to encapsulate and put to use the energies of those who are creative.
At the same time, we want the basic social safety net in place to be able to take care of the people who, through no fault of their own, are just not able to compete as effectively in a capitalist environment.
And I'm perfectly willing to state that as a principle that needs to be addressed.
I mean, I don't think that there's any magic wand of the free market that you can just wave and say, well, this serves all the capable people who are driven and have initiative and intelligence and skills, and everyone else could just go suck eggs.
I mean, that's not a reasonable solution to the problem, in my opinion.
So, what we're going to do is we're going to have a look at a government, and we shall call it, dare I say, A banana republic.
This is going to be very helpful.
You will remember. The banana, the banana, dare I say, will make you smile.
So, let us say that the banana represents not just my laziness in setting up the easel, the whiteboard, but it also represents the body politic.
This is, within a geographical area, the sum totality of the citizens who are operating within it.
Now, let us say that we're going to draw a line which represents the body politic and the state.
So this is not an anarchist banana.
This is a good old status banana, right?
Doubtless with trade protections and so on, and mercantilist sort of laws.
So let us say that this banana is the body politic, and we're going to draw a line to represent the government.
Now, let's first of all say, before we get into that, let's just first say that I've never debated with anybody who has ever said that the solution to the problem of those who have trouble taking care of themselves, that the solution to that is to have a dictatorship.
I mean, there are a few nutbag communists still floating around, a few Nazis still floating around, but they don't debate with me, right?
Because they're looking for, I guess, easier prey.
But... So let's say that we are going to, at the very outset, and we can go into that other argument if you're really, really curious, but let's just say at the very outset that we are going to accept that the solution to the problem of people who cannot take care of themselves is not going to be an out-and-out fascistic, statist, socialist, communist-style dictatorship.
Because, I mean, those have been so thoroughly discredited and awash with...
The foaming blood of millions, if not billions, throughout the 20th century, that's just not...
I mean, that's just like saying that the return to slavery...
It's a way to solve the problems of racism.
We just can't go back in time to that kind of gulag, top-down, bureaucratic, command-and-control kind of dictatorship.
So let's say that the problem of the poor must be solved through democratic means.
The problem of the poor who are deserving of charity and through no fault of their own are unable to effectively manage or run their own lives for whatever period of time, maybe permanently for whatever period of time, that it's going to be solved through a democracy.
All right? If we accept that, then there are basically two conditions in a democracy.
In a democracy, either the majority of people are for something, Or the majority of people are against something.
And we're going to say that democracy works and that the policies reflect the will of the people.
We're just going to take all of that.
We could argue all of that. And as an anarchist, I absolutely would.
But let's say we accept all of that.
The poor are deserving. They need help.
And that the actions of the leaders or the laws of the land more or less accurately represent the will of the majority.
Now, clearly, if the majority of people are unconcerned with the poor...
And just the disadvantaged and so on, the people who are in need of charity.
If basically they say, you know, screw you, you lost the lottery, I won the lottery, na-na-na-na-boo-boo, I dance on your rotting grave.
I mean, if the majority of people in a democracy, right, let's just put the midpoint in our banana republic, right?
Let's just say that's the midpoint, right?
If the line of people concerned about the poor goes above this midpoint, right?
Then, because it is a democracy, the will of the people will be reflected in the decisions of the leaders, and the poor will be helped through social programs and so on.
Let's just say. And let's say that they will be helped just for now.
Well, if in a democracy, the number of people who are interested in helping the poor are above, and not just 51%, right?
It has to be pretty significant.
Because if 51% of people are interested in helping the poor, but say 70% of people are interested in helping some foreign aid or whatever, then of course the leaders will go and say, well, I'm going to deal with the 70% preference rather than the 51% preference.
So in order for the social programs to get into place to help the disadvantaged, there has to be a clear majority of people in a democracy who want that to happen, who want the poor.
To be taken care of.
Very, very important aspect.
Very, very important aspect.
So, let's say that we're dealing with 75% of people who want to help the poor, and they go out and they put their ballot in, and they submit to the taxation and so on, which is all required, or the inflation, if the government is printing money.
They submit to that which is required to help the poor.
So, do you see the challenge or the critique that any rational anarchist, dare I say, any rationalist, is going to have of that particular system?
And to analogize it, and this is somewhat unjust because it's an emotional argument, I hope you'll forgive me, but the analogy holds in terms of the initiation of the use of force.
If I say that 75 out of 100 women really want to go out with me and marry me and have sex with me and have my babies and do all that kind of fun good stuff, then clearly for me saying that I need a forced marriage, I need the right of forced marriage would be illogical.
It wouldn't be moral, but it would be somewhat logical if no woman ever wanted to go out with me that I would say, well, clearly, and I believe this was true of everyone, like no man could ever get a woman to go out with him, then of course it would make at least some practical sense or utilitarian sense to say, and therefore, we need a government program of assigning brides.
However, if three-quarters of women want to go out with me, it doesn't make any sense for me to say I should compel women to go out with me because already 75% of women want to go out with me.
Sorry, it's not completely accurate.
It's 74.9.
Anyway, so if the majority of people want to do something, compelling them to do it is not rational.
It's not rational.
It only makes sense to compel people to help the poor if only a tiny minority of people want to help the poor.
If it's somewhere down 5-10% or 1%.
If only a tiny number of people right down there at the bottom of the Banana Republic statistics, if a tiny number of people want to help the poor, Then clearly we can say, well, the poor need to be helped.
Very few people want to help the poor, therefore we need government programs.
But then we have to abandon democracy, you see, because 10% will never be enough to get the politicians to respect the will of the people and put in programs that oppose the remaining 90% of people.
I'm sorry to be obtuse and I'm sorry to be repetitive.
This is so important to understand.
If you understand this, it is like being ejected out of the matrix, like a scud coming out of a submarine.
If you really, really get this.
The only reason that you would want to compel people to help the poor is if you believe that only a tiny minority of people want to actually help the poor and will do it.
But if only a tiny minority of people want to help the poor and will do it, then you cannot advocate a democracy.
Because a democracy only works if a clear and substantial majority want to do something.
Do you understand why the...
Forget about whether government programs help the poor.
Let's just assume that they do.
Of course they don't, but let's assume that they do for now.
Just deal with the mathematical logic so that we don't need evidence.
I'm all about the argument for morality and logical consistency.
We don't need all of these mountains of evidence.
It certainly is true that the number of poor people was declining from the post-Second World War period until the institution of the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson.
That the numbers of poor were declining by about 1% a year.
As soon as the Great Society programs went in, the number of poor ceased declining and has now become steady and slightly increased over the past 40 years.
So empirically, it's no question.
Poverty programs do not help the poor.
Poverty programs make poverty worse.
They institutionalize it.
They turn it into the soft ghetto.
Of an underclass that is dependent upon government handouts and reliable as supporters for government power.
So, yes, bribing the poor simply causes the poor to slide into the ash heap of the soft gulags of the welfare state.
However, this is so important.
If the majority of people want to help the poor, you don't need a statist solution, right?
It sort of makes sense.
If the majority of people want to help the poor, Then you don't need a status solution, right?
If we're somewhere up around here, if all the people in society want to help the poor, 75%, 80%, 85%, whatever, want to help the poor and are willing to do so, then they will vote in politicians who will compel everyone to help the poor.
But the politicians are completely unnecessary because the majority of people want to help the poor and are willing to do something about it.
They're willing to be activists.
They're willing to communicate to the politicians that they want to help the poor.
They're willing to fund those politicians.
They're willing to go and pound lawn signs into the lawn.
They're willing to go door to door.
They're willing to hand out pamphlets.
They're willing to invest a huge amount of political time and energy into making sure that politicians get the message that the majority of people want to help the poor.
So if the vast majority of people want to help the poor already, and that is what you are relying on in your advocacy of state programs, the state becomes completely unnecessary.
It becomes completely unnecessary.
If a minority of people only want to help the poor, if we're back down to this, like 10%, if only a tiny minority of people want to help the poor, then there is no such thing as a status solution at all, in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever, in any way at all.
Because, let's say that only 5% of people want to help the poor, then you're going to have to make sure that those 5% of people get to the very top, run the government, and enforce their will upon everyone else who doesn't want to follow it.
That is called a dictatorship, and that is a bloody, messy, destructive, vile, violent evil that historically has done the worst for the poor than any other system on the planet.
So if that's your solution, then clearly you don't really give a rat's ass about the poor, but rather some sort of bizarre ideological consistency.
If 95% of people are callous, cold, mean, and spiteful, and say, basically, screw the poor, I've got mine, buddy, then, of course, 95% of the political leaders will be the same way.
You can't divide humanity, you can't slice and dice humanity in this sort of weird class analysis where you have, you know, wise and enlightened philosopher kings at the top, and all of these, I guess what Plato would call the bronzes in the Republic, who just, you know, mill around, you know, and push the levers they're told to, and Go home and watch sitcoms.
You just can't. Every statement that you make about human beings is equally applicable to the leaders of the political system as to the followers.
So this fundamental critique, and I know this feels like a leap of faith, it feels like when you say, When someone says, what about the poor in a free society?
What about the poor in a society not founded or centered around state coercive violence?
What about the poor in a voluntary, positive and free society?
The interesting thing, of course, is that if nobody ever asked that question, I would actually have some concerns about it.
But the reality of the fact of the matter is that everyone asks that question, which means everybody is actually concerned about the poor.
And what that means, of course, is that people will voluntarily find ways to help the poor the most.
We simply know that it is a fact because everybody asks the question, what about the poor?
What that means is that people want to help the poor, people are concerned about the poor, We have to assume that they are because that's the only way we can suggest a democratic solution to the problem if the vast majority of people are actually willing to do the activity to get the poverty programs instituted, to do the activities required to support them to pay the taxes voluntarily because all taxes fundamentally have to be paid voluntarily or it doesn't work.
So we have to assume that in a democracy the vast majority of people are willing to expend time, money and effort to help the poor.
That's how these poverty programs begin.
Therefore, we know exactly the same thing is going to occur in a free society, except that the vast majority of...
The activities in a peaceful and free and voluntary society will actually be directed towards really, genuinely, completely and totally helping the poor, rather than just firing these soma-drugging checks at them, keeping them as a soft underclass, educating them poorly, keeping them trapped in this underworld of welfare, which is what the current feasting evil of the state is doing in terms of helping the poor.
So if you get this basic concept, That if democracy is a solution, if statist democracy, state policies is considered by you or by anyone a solution to the problem of poverty, a voluntary society gains all the benefits, but with the additional layer of depoliticizing the actual helping of the poor and having people who have to prove to those who donate to them that they are doing the most and the best to help the poor, the government has no such requirements.
The government has no such requirements.
The government does not have to effectively teach children in order to get its funding.
The government does not actually have to help the poor in order to get its funding.
The government does not actually have to protect you from terrorists in order to get its funding.
The government does not actually have to protect you from bad medicine or crime to get its funding.
The government gets its funding at the point of a gun.
That is not a solution to any form of human problem except a wildly small percentage of extreme situations of self-defense.
So, I hope that this, I mean, I'm so sorry, if you don't get this, please rewind and watch this again.
I've tried to keep it short, 21 minutes, 30 seconds.
You really, really have to get this.
Not for me, not for anarchism, but just for your own clarity of understanding.
Whatever we rely on in a democracy is going to be infinitely more reliable and positive and capable in a truly free society.
And I hope that this helps give you an understanding of the approach that a rational philosophy can take to the problem of helping the poor.
▲
Export Selection