"Granted that Friedman was 87 when he said this, it’s still appalling." Appalling? Come on Bryan, you may disagree with it, but let's not go hyperwoke on statements you disagree with. This is one of the reasons carrying on a rational, non-emotional debate has become so difficult nowadays.
I've heard other people make Friedman's argument before, and I don't think it's as cut and dry as you've said in this piece.
On paper it does seem like an improvement, but in practice it could end up creating social animus and discord that swamped the benefits out. It could create a sense of unfairness, because despite paying taxes you wouldn't be able to receive any benefits if you became unemployed, for example.
In practice I imagine the scenarios in which this would actually happen would be far fewer and lesser than the benefits gained by those who came and never needed the welfare system, but there is still the risk associated with the perception it could create. You may end up with a sort of caste-like system.
I still think it's better than not letting them come at all, but it is more nuanced than this piece suggests.
This is a very strange reaction you've shared here. If you made an argument for your claim that dividing the population up into different tranches with different levels of access to the benefits of living in this society is a marginal step in the direction of liberty, I missed it. It's a very counter intuitive claim and so requires some argumentation.
I'm with Friedman on this one. The implementation of a legal caste system seems very clearly like a move in the opposite direction of liberty. If you disagree, you need to articulate a convincing case.
How is it a caste system to require, say, 5-10 years of residency before receiving welfare benefits? There are already restrictions for receiving various benefits now for citizens (notwithstanding whether those benefits should exist in the first place or whether the restrictions are sufficient). The question for me would be how long the “keyhole” solution would last as millions of immigrants pour in and soon catch on to the fact that they are living next door to poor folks like them who receive some kind of welfare. They would certainly feel like second class citizens. I don’t think it would be long before a demagogic politician makes a promise to end the keyhole.
Milton Friedman made that statement 25 years ago. He wasn't commenting on the current immigration situation. I'm not defending the current approach. I am speaking about basic principles divorced from the partisan tensions of the current moment, as was Friedman.
But as Caplan points out, Friedman’s response was basically a knee-jerk reaction. That’s fine but as I already asked, is it really a caste system to impose restrictions on receiving welfare? It’s just a change in the rules, which has happened many times in the past.
But the question didn’t say that the blue card was a temporary status, which would convert to full privileges. I assume Friedman was imagining a permanent system of separate tiers. Lots of people in the first tier are comfortable with that kind of system and it sounds like Friedman was not.
How about this version: “You cannot simultaneously have free pregnancies and a welfare state.” The existence of welfare means we have to regulate births, right? ..... Right?
"And how in the world does telling people, “You can’t come here because you might collect welfare” an example of treating people “as an end in themselves”?!"
no one country can or should try to treat all the rest of the world's people "as an end in themselves - charity begins at home
35 years ago one of my students (she was from Yap Island, which provided an interesting perspective for her on American culture) was studying welfare in general, and she hit the nail on the head. "We all fear becoming poor, if we're not currently poor, but we all also know we will get old."
That was her answer for why the welfare programs for the poor and for the elderly differ. She was right.
I know a lot of immigrants - both rich and educated ones and poor uneducated ones. The rich educated ones are no problem at all - they not only have skills, they have pride, and I've never met one who has collected a penny in welfare; I can't imagine them ever doing so.
The poor ones often come from a culture where cheating the system is considered 100% ok - the cultural attitude is "if there's free money on the table, only an idiot doesn't pick it up". These people will both work (very hard) for an honest living *and* collect welfare (as much as they can get, even if by cheating) at the same time. Perhaps some cultures don't think that way.
It's not just the poor from those cultures who do that. Living near Detroit let me see a lot of different immigrant cultures. Even fairly wealthy immigrants from "cheating" cultures cheated to the extent they could.
"Granted that Friedman was 87 when he said this, it’s still appalling." Appalling? Come on Bryan, you may disagree with it, but let's not go hyperwoke on statements you disagree with. This is one of the reasons carrying on a rational, non-emotional debate has become so difficult nowadays.
Back to you, Chuck.
Say ain't so, Joe.
I've heard other people make Friedman's argument before, and I don't think it's as cut and dry as you've said in this piece.
On paper it does seem like an improvement, but in practice it could end up creating social animus and discord that swamped the benefits out. It could create a sense of unfairness, because despite paying taxes you wouldn't be able to receive any benefits if you became unemployed, for example.
In practice I imagine the scenarios in which this would actually happen would be far fewer and lesser than the benefits gained by those who came and never needed the welfare system, but there is still the risk associated with the perception it could create. You may end up with a sort of caste-like system.
I still think it's better than not letting them come at all, but it is more nuanced than this piece suggests.
This is a very strange reaction you've shared here. If you made an argument for your claim that dividing the population up into different tranches with different levels of access to the benefits of living in this society is a marginal step in the direction of liberty, I missed it. It's a very counter intuitive claim and so requires some argumentation.
I'm with Friedman on this one. The implementation of a legal caste system seems very clearly like a move in the opposite direction of liberty. If you disagree, you need to articulate a convincing case.
How is it a caste system to require, say, 5-10 years of residency before receiving welfare benefits? There are already restrictions for receiving various benefits now for citizens (notwithstanding whether those benefits should exist in the first place or whether the restrictions are sufficient). The question for me would be how long the “keyhole” solution would last as millions of immigrants pour in and soon catch on to the fact that they are living next door to poor folks like them who receive some kind of welfare. They would certainly feel like second class citizens. I don’t think it would be long before a demagogic politician makes a promise to end the keyhole.
Milton Friedman made that statement 25 years ago. He wasn't commenting on the current immigration situation. I'm not defending the current approach. I am speaking about basic principles divorced from the partisan tensions of the current moment, as was Friedman.
But as Caplan points out, Friedman’s response was basically a knee-jerk reaction. That’s fine but as I already asked, is it really a caste system to impose restrictions on receiving welfare? It’s just a change in the rules, which has happened many times in the past.
But the question didn’t say that the blue card was a temporary status, which would convert to full privileges. I assume Friedman was imagining a permanent system of separate tiers. Lots of people in the first tier are comfortable with that kind of system and it sounds like Friedman was not.
How about this version: “You cannot simultaneously have free pregnancies and a welfare state.” The existence of welfare means we have to regulate births, right? ..... Right?
“You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”
I can do better. How about, “You cannot have a welfare state.”
"And how in the world does telling people, “You can’t come here because you might collect welfare” an example of treating people “as an end in themselves”?!"
no one country can or should try to treat all the rest of the world's people "as an end in themselves - charity begins at home
35 years ago one of my students (she was from Yap Island, which provided an interesting perspective for her on American culture) was studying welfare in general, and she hit the nail on the head. "We all fear becoming poor, if we're not currently poor, but we all also know we will get old."
That was her answer for why the welfare programs for the poor and for the elderly differ. She was right.
I know a lot of immigrants - both rich and educated ones and poor uneducated ones. The rich educated ones are no problem at all - they not only have skills, they have pride, and I've never met one who has collected a penny in welfare; I can't imagine them ever doing so.
The poor ones often come from a culture where cheating the system is considered 100% ok - the cultural attitude is "if there's free money on the table, only an idiot doesn't pick it up". These people will both work (very hard) for an honest living *and* collect welfare (as much as they can get, even if by cheating) at the same time. Perhaps some cultures don't think that way.
It's not just the poor from those cultures who do that. Living near Detroit let me see a lot of different immigrant cultures. Even fairly wealthy immigrants from "cheating" cultures cheated to the extent they could.
Yes, so? We've got LOTS of that/those culture among us already.
And worse. LOTS of it. It may pull us all down yet, granted.
So?