After a hiatus, my intentions are that this blog returns to its previous state of more frequent posting. The hiatus was due to my studies, summer holidays, some arrangements that were to be made with the university, and my own laziness and carelessness.
I have elaborated, while having my usual daily walks, a few arguments against the welfare state – they should, probably, appeal to both traditionalists and ordinary liberal-influenced people.
The first two arguments portray the welfare state as inhumane, and as devaluing people for the sake of the economy. The third argument is following the logic of social democrats by which they justify, say, the low grades of minority pupils in schools – tests are culturally conditioned and thus somehow racist. I will use this logic and apply it to the very welfare state.
First, the welfare state is inhumane because it is, in a way, still eugenic. People who work are useful for society and have, in many European countries, priority over old people. In that sense, the lives of those who are useful to society have more dignity and value, compared with those who are retired. Thus is the case when patients are waiting for a donation of an organ, for example – some have priority over others.
Also, in some Nordic countries, mothers have to have a minimal maternity leave after giving birth to their child before returning to work. During the leave, they are considered useless to society, and thus this leave should be minimized… so that the state may employ more people, who will eventually take care of the child. (For more details, check this article, which I found via Jim Kalb’s blog.)
This is not ageism; the welfarists could argue that it is based on one’s contributing to society. But then why do they justify unemployed people who are useless to society? Because they are potential employable material. This is eugenics mixed with Marxism, under the same veneer as the early 20th century’s Progressivism’s eugenics of taking care of the strong and the healthy. Neo-Marxism gave some good fruits, I may argue, but this isn’t one of them – Socialists used to oppose this about less than 80 years ago!
Second, the welfare state is materialistic. But it is inhumane because its system gives us the mentality by which we elect someone only because of his social and economical positions. This may even seem common sense to most Europeans and Americans, and this is because ever since World War II, the materialist leftists have had the upper hand most of the time.
My criticism is that no one judges a politician for the morality and values that he promotes, and that this is important. Alexander Solzhenitsyn compared, during the Cold war, the West and the East as both materialistic, and explained that it is this materialism that appeals to many Western intellectuals who have gone Marxist. Here’s an actual quote from one of his speeches:
“It is not possible that assessment of the President’s performance be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism.”
Let’s go deeper. Social democrats, or leftist liberals, hate Nazism and, to a lesser extent, Bolshevism. And yet, if we only look on the economic level, the election of the Nazis and the 1917 October revolution in Russia were both justifiable. Materialism justifies and links these two events, because both the Nazis and the Bolsheviks appeared to have the best economic solutions.
Thirdly, the welfare state is, in a way, racist. It is culturally conditioned in white European culture, and thus it is hardly adaptable to minorities such as blacks and Oriental Muslims.
In the USA, for example, some leftists say that black people have lower IQ and lower grades in school because the questions are culturally conditioned. And yet they don’t apply this, or not fully, to the high crime rates in ghettos. Most criminals are poor people or come from minorities. This is because our laws are culturally conditioned. Thus, it is easier for the white bourgeois to be law-abiding than it is for blacks. The system makes it harder for the latter to excel morally.
There are two solutions to that problem. We should either (1) make a system – for school and for law – that can be applied to both the majority and the minorities. Or else, (2) we should accept the cultural differences and incompatibilities and either (2a) decentralize government and leave every ethnic community take care of itself (like in the Ottoman empire), or else (2b) we should deport or segregate minorities.
I believe that the culture of most white people still tends to be more Apollonian, while the culture of blacks to be more Dionysian. Thus, the second solution is more realistic, while the first – radically unrealistic. Egalitarians, of course, may contradict me – objections are welcome!