Comments on: Do governments assume citizen rationality and self-control?

By: Fitzroyalty

Fitzroyalty — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:02:24 +0000

100+ years ago all you needed to survive was the ability to do physical labour, and people survived without literacy or numeracy.

Now to function well and thrive in society you need the cognitive ability to use an ATM, fill out complex government forms, buy healthy food not junk food, choose responsible behaviour eg not drinking and driving etc.

The point is that the minimum intellectual requirements to prosper have increased significantly, and have increased far ahead of the general IQ increases in society due to better nutrition, education etc.

Thus you have a growing underclass without the cognitive ability to function effectively in society.

But our governments will never acknowledge that we are not born equal.

By: Martha Maus

Martha Maus — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:47:00 +0000

Wasn’t it Aristotle that said a fair/just outcome required that we treat equals equally, and unequals unequally? Are we unable to deal with ideas of this complexity in our social policy or are we unwilling?

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:15:16 +0000

Russell – I think the net effect of government has been to reduce community ties, because by doing so many things it removes the need for people to join together. This is not entirely a bad thing: community is over-rated and can be oppressive as well as fulfilling. Market society has similar effects in allowing us to meet many needs via contractual instead of community ties.

By: Russell

Russell — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:04:03 +0000

“100+ year ago you either worked for a living or starved to death”
Well, it wasn’t that bad. Apart from charitable and government institutions, families looked after their own, especially the elderly or slightly disabled.
.
“What’s still missing is an honest acknowledgement of why the underclass is growing”
One reason could be the change in work. I can remember getting on the bus and a conductor (sometimes it was my grandfather) would collect the fare. My grandmother was a seamstress who ran a thriving little business from home, making dresses for the wealthy neighbors. They never retired because they enjoyed working/making things, interacting with people and earning that money (which they gave to us).
There used to be a lot of work that wasn’t exactly ‘symbolic’ and it may be that we need a certain amount of that kind of work because it’s the only kind that some people are suited for.
.
“government does not create communities”
It can assist by providing the places and opportunities for people to meet. My local government has a recreation centre – library, gym, tennis courts etc – and people meet at the activities there. It arranges a volunteer service to connect residents to help new arrivals to Australia practice English etc. In the old days a child health nurse would visit new mothers and connect up the ones living near each other to form playgroups etc.

By: conrad

conrad — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:29:55 +0000

“What’s still missing is an honest acknowledgement of why the underclass is growing,”
.
Since when and for how long?

By: Fitzroyalty

Fitzroyalty — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:09:52 +0000

I've read some of the recent work on inequality eg this. But again this is correlation dressed up as causality. There is a lack of inequality in our society because the difference between the least and most intelligent is growing. Those that have the capacity to improve their status do so while those with no capacity stagnate. See this.

By: Fitzroyalty

Fitzroyalty — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:05:25 +0000

What’s still missing is an honest acknowledgement of why the underclass is growing, along with the growing welfare sosts.

They simply don’t have the intellectual or cultural capacity to improve themselves. Unless we deal with this reality we will not achieve anything.

100+ year ago you either worked for a living or starved to death. I can’t see a return to these conditions being allowed in Australia.

The underclass is growing because welfare provides a perverse incentive to breed. We should reverse this for a start.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:33:10 +0000

The welfare state makes it easier to walk away rather than try to repair damaged relationships, makes it easier to keep a kid rather than have an abortion, put it up for adoption, or get married (or be more careful with the contraception in the first place). It’s certainly not the only factor, it is in a feedback loop with major cultural changes – which have big benefits but also a downside.

I’m with Rajat – government does not create communities, and nor does forced equality. I can assure you I feel no bond with the pensioners my taxes support, nor they with me.

By: Rajat Sood

Rajat Sood — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:22:33 +0000

Do you really think families are made or broken by incentives? Do you think parents fight and divorce because they can relax in the knowledge that the state will look after their estranged kids?

Maybe married couples don’t divorce to get a few bucks, but I think welfare could certainly encourage women in weakly-committed couples to take less care with contraception or reject abortion and it may also enable men in those sorts of relationship to leave and avoid their financial responsibilities.

Or, do you really think people overconsume junk food because they know the state will pitch in for their heart attack health bill?

Who cares if people choose to eat junk food and get fat, so long as they don’t impose a cost on others. There are plenty of fat people around who never eat junk food and plenty of thin people who do.

The important question is how we rebuild communities

I agree, but when has government ever managed to succeed in doing this? Forced reduction in inequality simply breeds resentment from the taxed and a culture of entitlement amongst the recipients.

By: Jack Fuller

Jack Fuller — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:28:44 +0000

Andrew – thanks for your reply. I’m glad you recognise some of the same problems, but I don’t think the conservative/classical liberal argument you outline seriously engages with them. Do you really think families are made or broken by incentives? Do you think parents fight and divorce because they can relax in the knowledge that the state will look after their estranged kids? The problem has deeper roots, in the quality of our communities. Or, do you really think people overconsume junk food because they know the state will pitch in for their heart attack health bill? People eat junk food because its available, cheap and addictive (cf. recent research by David Kessler).
The important question is how we rebuild communities, and create environments which bring out the strengths of human nature rather than play on our weaknesses. Government is an important player in this task. The prerequisites for this revival are a reduction in inequality and an engagement with how good social norms actually form. Ultimately, we need less Thatcherite rhetoric and more careful attention to the quality of the institutions and spaces in which people spend most of their time, and develop habits and preferences.