Ending the Welfare State is Not the End of the World
“The American welfare states focuses almost exclusively on helping relatively poor Americans, not absolutely poor foreigners.”
I have long enjoyed loudly pointing out this indisputable fact, but why? At minimum, this fact exposes the moral blindness of actually-existing leftist philosophy: “Oh thou hypocrites, if you really cared about the wretched of the Earth, you would want to take the money you are squandering on the 90th-percentile of the world income distribution, and give it to those at its 1st-percentile.”
Actually-existing leftist philosophers normally ignore my challenge. But a few marshal a reply along the lines of: “You libertarians are the real hypocrites. You don’t actually care about the global poor. You’re just name-dropping the global poor to distract us from your real agenda: Defunding the domestic poor to help the domestic rich. Sure, if we had to choose between helping relatively poor natives or absolutely poor foreigners, we should help absolutely poor foreigners. But that’s impossible in a democracy. Leftists aren’t hypocrites; we’re virtuous people trying to do the most good we can given political realities.”
How do I respond? If I were being defensive, I would start by objecting, “I don’t actually care about the global poor?! I am the author of Open Borders. Free migration from the Third World to the First is my top policy issue! Granted, most libertarians don’t share my prioritization, but no other political philosophy takes open borders — or Effective Altruism for the global poor — as seriously as libertarians do.”
But one should not be defensive with one’s critics. One should be generous. Here is the generous reply:
A handful of thoughtful leftist philosophers does indeed hold the cosmopolitan position you ascribe to leftists in general. Good for you.
The vast majority of leftists, however, barely thinks about the global poor. And when pushed, a vast majority of this vast majority falls back on the slogan that, “Charity begins at home.” If they had the option to redirect welfare spending to the global poor, they would staunchly refuse to do so.
Am I being unfair to the vast majority of leftists? Hardly. As you are well aware, most of them don’t even believe that desperate foreigners should be free to solve their own poverty problem by moving to America to wash dishes and clean hotel rooms.
So what? Well, how do cosmopolitan leftists like yourself morally evaluate non-cosmopolitan leftists? Quite sympathetically! You could protest, “It’s all an act, I know they’re evil,” but if that’s your position, then you deserve an Oscar for Best Actor. Admit it: You sincerely like and even admire non-cosmopolitan leftists.
Why? Because you deem this a reasonable disagreement! “While I personally think we should prioritize the global poor, I understand why most well-meaning people prefer the ‘Charity begins are home’ principle.” You deem this a reasonable disagreement even though you are well-aware that Third World absolute poverty is truly horrifying compared to First World relative poverty. You probably even comfort yourself with thoughts like, “Well, the global poor are used to these awful conditions, and thanks to economic growth, their lives are generally improving. With hard work and a little luck, the global poor can still build decent lives for themselves.”
Again, so what? Simple: If reasonable, decent people can disagree on, “Should we prioritize the global poor over the domestic poor?,” when why can’t reasonable, decent people disagree on, “Should we prioritize the domestic poor over the domestic rich?” Especially considering that the former is a narrow debate about the ideal beneficiaries of forced charity, while the latter is a broader debate about the principle of forced charity.
Similarly: If you can comfort yourself with thoughts like, “Well, the global poor are used to these awful conditions, and thanks to economic growth, their lives are generally improving. With hard work and a little luck, the global poor can still build decent lives for themselves,” why can’t you comfort yourself with, “Well, the domestic poor are used to these not-absolutely-awful conditions, and thanks to economic growth, their lives are generally improving. With hard work and a little luck, the domestic poor can still build decent lives for themselves”?
Moreover: If you can find it in your heart to smile upon non-cosmopolitan leftists, why on Earth would you bear ill will toward a libertarian like me who supports open borders and opposes the welfare state? Yes, you could protest, “It’s all an act, I know you’re evil,” but if that’s your position, then I deserve an Oscar for Best Actor.
Bigger picture: Even the most thoughtful leftist philosophers lapse into childish hyperbole when libertarians call for the abolition of the welfare state. The absence of a global welfare state isn’t the end of the world. The abolition of the domestic welfare state wouldn’t be the end of the world either.
Deeper picture: Even the most thoughtful leftist philosophers plainly care a lot more about preserving and expanding the welfare state than preserving and expanding immigration. Isn’t deep-seated antipathy for markets, business, and the rich the best explanation for these twisted priorities? Look me in the eye, my friends, and tell me I’m wrong.
Why harp on the hypocrisy of the welfare state? Because for all the self-righteousness of its champions, the welfare state isn’t merely unjust; it blinds us to a gargantuan injustice in plain sight. Instead of trying to pretend that the unfortunate have a right to charity, we should admit that everyone — the global poor included — has a right to work for willing employers, rent from willing landlords, and patronize willing merchants — in any country on Earth. By historic standards, humanity is doing amazingly well, but by the power of open borders, a far juster and richer world is within our grasp.
1) Foreign aid and open borders are intensely unpopular in first world democracies.
2) Running on these platforms will cause leftist parties to lose elections while not passing the preferred policies.
3) When leftist parties lose elections the first world welfare state will be smaller then otherwise.
This seems like the most obvious line of argument. The goal of leftists is to transfer resources from rich first worlders to poor first worlders because poor first worlders can vote and thus have he actual political power necessary to take from rich first worlders, while poor third worlders don't have political power.
Now, if you think poor first worlders stealing from rich first worlders is bad, this won't be appealing, but I think you are starting from the viewpoint that they are leftists, so they view it as a good thing.
If you put a gun to his head and forced Matt Yglesias to choose between the welfare state and One Billion Americans, he would choose the welfare state, at least in his role as a pundit.
Frederic Bastiat wrote (and I paraphrase - he wrote it in French, anyway).
The state is that institution by means of which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
He is considered to have been an economist, in retrospect. Whatever he was, he was great (veneration!).