The Pauper: Chapter 11: Welfare
The systems (and the administrators) which dispense these benefits have a particular disdain for the demographics they "serve," and they don't hide it from plain sight
Men seek masters, because one supposes a master assumes most of the risk in a given venture or circumstance. Yet the unsettling truth is that although they do, they also practice diligence in transferring those risks to those under them.
It is why the masses always pay for the foolishness of their ruling class.
If we can avoid either risk or exertion in attaining our rewards, we certainly will. We’ve rather be fed the fish, than insist on learning how to fish.
What chiefly drives us is the desire or need for safety and security, and once a man feels content, it is easier for you to move a mountain than to compel him to move himself.
Herein lies the diabolical genius of government welfare; the ability to cater—or appear to cater—to one’s needs, though they are often insufficiently met.
Man possesses a stronger desire for that which is guaranteed but partly insufficient, than for that which is not guaranteed, yet contains great potential for sufficiency.
It was Rome’s elite which perfected that clever trick and made it a science; that to pacify a population, one need do only two things: First, give them enough bread so they don’t completely detest you; they will scorn you with their lips, while their palms are stretched. They will not bite the hand that feeds them, but they will lightly insult it.
Second, entertain them so as to distract them from their problems—problems which you helped create. The pauper should not assume that social welfare is done for him out of a pure and genuine concern by the state. As before asserted, systems do not exist to serve him, and he has no friends in the halls of power.
Government systems of social welfare are built to pacify him. They demand onerous or demeaning conditions that discourage adventure and self-improvement. They are additionally humiliating because they are not even generous. Over the long term they sustain poverty.
Welfare is not potentially progressive in its administration; it tethers its recipients to one living standard that can never improve because benefits are fixed and deteriorate over time, when rising inflation and costs of living are accounted for. In addition, many benefits have an expiration date.
A real-life example is a woman who sought to leave the rolls of welfare by finding employment. If she would have accepted the offer from the job she applied for, she would no longer be eligible for the benefits that she received at the time; though that work paid less than the government benefit. So, she didn't pursue employment any further.
Now, a system with a genuine interest in the welfare of others, would continue to grant her the benefits in the difference between the benefit sum and her wages, if her current wages were less than her prior benefits. The social worker dispensing those benefits would then set a timeline where full amputation from the administration of welfare was appropriate, allowing the recipient to transition in a dignified way.
It will NEVER be done in such a manner.
The systems (and the administrators) which dispense these benefits have a particular disdain for the demographics they “serve,” and they don’t hide it from plain sight. Their behavior exposes them. The fruits they bear are not of propriety and consideration, but of contempt and deep-seated ridicule. Government-run homeless shelters are a case in point. In addition, the benefits are not dispensed to help people on the verge of emergencies; they are mainly given only when emergencies transpire, and personal resources are exhausted, which undermines the programs and makes them more costly.
The actual spirit and intent of these systems is to stabilize society in a way so as to prevent the fires of social upheaval. In other words, they are built to deflect away from deep social injustices, and nullify the rage of the masses. The late U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once bragged that he saved capitalism. The context being that the corporate and government elite had caused the economic ruin and turmoil that many found themselves in during the Great Depression, and he had saved their necks by pacifying the civilian population with government programs which kept many afloat and occupied.
The pauper should understand, that good intentions are worth nothing. He should judge only by tangible results. As virtue is erroneously conflated with wealth, so is poverty conflated with vice. It is true that many of the poor practice crime, and often undermine their own material advancement.
But many among the rich and well-to-do are also criminals, and are often bigger criminals than their poorer counterparts; yet they mask themselves using power and prestige, and often corrupt or escape justice.
They also seek welfare benefits in the form of business and financial bailouts, subsidies, and rigged contractual agreements and regulations which stifle their competitors.
They also commit murder in more ways than one. They violate myriad rights and freedoms through the lobbying of corrupt officials, in order to secure their interests against the public welfare. They smear, they misinform, they commit perjury, they deprive, they extort, they bribe, they rob workers of their wages, and they send the children of paupers to die in unjustified wars, for their own economic interests.
But the pauper is the one ridiculed because he’s the most vulnerable.
Then, if the pauper must accept social welfare benefits, he should accept them with caution. There is no inherent wrong in doing so. Welfare is not a moral question, but a practical one, which requires a serious consideration of trade-offs. Due to this, the pauper should swallow his pride and seek or accept the help of neighbors, and anyone else offering help. Though private charity is at many times insufficient, and also possesses its own risks of humiliation (i.e. exposing one’s self to public knowledge and judgment), there are groups that administer it more graciously than government systems, and without strings attached.
There are no satisfying answers.
He should have a mixed strategy with only one goal in mind in the economic sense: Resource-based freedom.
Find my work here on Substack. Don’t forget to follow, so that you never miss a new article when it comes out. In short, I despise the Elite, along with the cultural stagnation, academic conformity, economic chaos, and social decay that they create or facilitate. I aspire to empower and equip the common man with the perspective and mindset to wrest back ownership of his life.