Varsity Blues (NEW CONCEPTS)

[nemesis8]

Hmm what a thought provoking idea. I will clearly have to reconsider my weltanschauung. Thank you Mr Ambrosio. Please proceed, at a goodly pace so I am further enlightened. If my post seems a little hurried, pray do not take offence, it is simply that you have instilleed in me, a desire for further tidbits of your knowledge.

[berniegreen]

Orlright chaps. Gosh I wish they would let us do emoticons. I'd send you a whole barrage of them.

Now, seriously folks, we have an undeniable major difference in attitudes to welfarism as between America (maybe we should say the US to be really specific) and Europe (plus the countries that have followed Europe's lead - Australia, Canada, NZ etc ). On the one hand we have a sizeable portion of the population (minority or majority, I don't know) who appear to actively hate the whole idea of welfarism. On the other we have a small minority of welfare haters while the vast majority accept it with reasonably good grace as being a necessary and/or humane part of a civilised society. Why this profound difference?

Two alternative explanations occur to me. The first is the one already mentioned - the religious angle. The second lies in the political roots of the American Revolution.

1. The religious angle. It is clearly the case that secularism and welfarism appear together. If the rise of secularism breeds welfarism as a sort of replacement for religious sentiment then we have a cause (although perhaps not the only one) for the US v Europe divide. However if it is the other way round and it is the rise in welfarism that breeds secularism then N8 is right in his objection to this idea.

2. Political roots. The American Revolution was a rejection not just of British monarchy and taxation but also a rejection of the notion of the concept of a ruling class. All men were created free and equal! Embedded in the European political system was the notion of the duty of care that the ruling class had for the rest of us - the noblesse oblige which descends from feudalism. And this inherent duty of care, we could suppose, leads directly into the acceptance of welfarism. It is possible that by rejecting the notion of a ruling class, the American Revolution threw the baby out with the bathwater and also rejected the duty of care.

If the second argument is right, then we have another question to answer. Why the lack of adaptation in the light of changing circumstance especially in the light that the US has clearly developed a ruling class. Perhaps Ish's suggestion that it is "dogma that blocks the road to all stupid ideas" is right. Except that to the rest of the civilised world welfarism doesn't seem like a stupid idea.

Comments most welcome.

[berniegreen]

Yes, true about the slaves but Australia did have convicts which were in effect slaves until they got their ticket of leave. However if the slavery issue is important, you would expect to find the anti-welfare attitudes stronger in the former slave-owning states, wouldn't you? Is that the case or not? I don't know. Perhaps one of our North American colleagues could tell us.

Housing projects and derelict tenements. I would have thought that most derelict tenements were the result of slum landlordism rather than of welfare housing projects. Many of the government funded blocks that I have seen are pretty horrible and dreary but they are not in the same league of wretchedness as the privately built and rented slums in South Bronx, Detroit or even Glasgow of yesteryear.

And yes I am sure that you are right as to their siting in many places although Melbourne, Sydney, Milan, Rotterdam and Bologna (to name some cities that I have personally looked at) have municipal housing very close to the CBD.

[nemesis8]

Not being an applied epistemologist, my attitude to welfare is in part determined by the level I am taxed, and the welfare I receive.

I want my hard earned money spent wisely.

I look at my pay packet. Must just be me....

Please proceed.

[berniegreen]

Yes, indeed, as did I (past tense for now as a retired person in OZ I pay little tax). And I remember well back in the 1970s that I felt briefly attracted to the Friedmanite view that I could spend my money better than the government could. But then the dreary dogmatism of the Thatcher years brought me to my senses and I realised that Friedman might be very clever but he was also a rather simple minded dunce.

So as it says on the pediment of the US Treasury building "Taxes are the Price of Freedom" (or something similar) appeared to be quite logical and I stopped being resentful.

Now here is a thing. It would be perfectly understandable for peasants of the Old World to be resentful of the taxes gouged from them by the ruling class. In contrast in the New World, which had done away with "the ruling class", one might reasonably expect a joyful communal giving of a portion of one's wealth for the common good. But the Americans seem to hate taxation even more than we do.

I do not have an explanation for this.

[nemesis8]

Ok I will let you get on with it. My own thinking is that you might struggle to explain attitudes to welfare without in part thinking about how your avearge Joe is taxed.

Where were you? Something like 19th century individualism in the US was unrestrained by a culture of a "duty of care" to the less fortunate....whereas in Europe.......

Please proceed.

[Ishmael]

[nemesis8]

In advanced capitalist societies, the sick, lazy and destitute are broadly supported by a combination of the hard-working rich and hard-working poor.

The hard-working middle classes (despite what they think) are really only funding their own welfare in the sense that for every pound they pay, they get a pound back in middle class welfare. They can be supportive of higher taxes particularly where it involves more middle class welfare....

Having it fairly easy, the middle classes are often quite liberal and boring. It is the hard-working poor, who end up both giving, or being taxed, most as a percentage, that have the most interesting views.... They don't mind being taxed to fund the deserving poor, but tend to come down hardest on your "parasites", namely the benefit cheats, the idle super rich, ("wall street not main street"), and any new immigrants who cream off the social housing.....

There you go. Everything you needed to know in a few lines. Ok I took a few liberties.....

Please proceed Bernie. I think Ish is bored.

[Ishmael]

[berniegreen]

Thank you for that nugget, Ish. That is truly fascinating.

(Sorry everybody I missed a few posts. I am referring here to Ish's post about resentment of taxation and acceptance of charity giving being linked)

The thing that leaps to mind is that resentment and rejection of communal duty/family duties is typical of adolescence. Just as the typical teenager, if she/he can be maneuvered into believing that doing the washing up or tidying her room is actually her choice she will do it gladly.

So if resentment of tax-paying is high but giving to charity (which is a free choice) is also high, we are looking at behaviour which is similar to adolescent behaviour.

Now it is well known that American society lays great stress on the individual - the expectation of "individual fulfilment". It stresses the freedom of the individual and the right of the individual to make their own choices. Perhaps these social mores also unconsciously encourage a general fixation or retardation of emotional development at a juvenile level.

If this so, then the great American experiment is clearly doomed to collapse. Unbridled freedom is counterproductive of social cohesion. On an ever more crowded planet with its social and environmental challenges the Asian societies in which duty to the group ranks higher than individual liberty are bound to be the winners.

[Ishmael]

[nemesis8]

N8 reckons that you need to chuck out a whole load of left/right preconceptions to get to the heart of this.

You could start by asking why the US developed a (lefty)progressive system of taxation.....

[Mick Harper]

Asking Ishmael to forgo his political preconceptions is about as useful as asking him to stop his very soppy habit of making one-line interjections. We cut him slack because he is a very senior and encrusted member.

[berniegreen]

Ish, this is very very disappointing. You have many times berated me for not opening up my mind to alternative ways of looking at things and for clinging to my "received ideas". Now you are doing the self same thing. What sort of an example is that?

Please, take a step back, think outside the box, and, if you still think that my idea doesn't hold water, well OK, but tell me why you think that.

[berniegreen]