Hard to have effectively indentured servitude if there’s a social safety net.
Remember even Hayek advocated for universal, government funded healthcare! Ayn Rand was on social security!
Remember even Hayek advocated for universal, government funded healthcare! Ayn Rand was on social security!
As a hypothetical, if the government took everyone's houses away and lotteried them back out out I'd say that was a terrible policy. I'd still be happy enough to move in to somewhere if I won a house though, because although the policy is appalling I'd rather be an owner than a renter and there aren't paths to owning.
Ditto, Ayn would probably have preferred that she wasn't taxed in the first place, but if they're going to give some of the money back she'd be stupid not to take it and there is no moral problem for her while taxes >= welfare receipts.
Assuming that integrity and hypocrisy don't play any part in judging a person.
The alternative position would be kinda crazy. It'd be pretty close to "The government has injured me and therefore I will make myself even worse off for no reason or gain to anyone!"
But that isn't hypocrisy. Ayn's philosophical position was comfortable with the idea that everyone is greedy and her moral arguments were rooted in the observation that people will generally do what they can. It isn't reasonable to call someone a hypocrite or lacking integrity if they lay out a high-integrity moral position then stick to it. It isn't even a fallacy as much as an argument-from-not-listening-to-what-she-said.
This isn't complicated. If you pay $100 in taxes to the government then draw $80 in cheques from the government it'd be a rare anti-tax argument that has a moral problem with the $80 part. Most would argue the number should be $100 and might make an argument that the $20 disappeared in beurecratic overheads.
> There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.
Eg, that quote doesn't involve government covering medical costs for someone in their old age.
He might even have been excluding things like catching the flu, seeing the doctor and needing a week off work since he's talking about things people could not make adequate provisions for on their own.
The "genuinely insurable risks" and "few individuals can make adequate provision" comments he made in that quote are serious caveats on what he said. He clearly isn't advocating for what would be called universal state-funded healthcare in the modern context. He appears to be talking about a bare-bones public insurance scheme [0] for certain rare events where he didn't go into detail on what he thinks is reasonable to cover. I'd like it if everyone reverted to that sort of scheme, any English speaking country could get a tax break if they went back to that sort of system. The expectation would be that most people don't use it.
[0] Actual insurance, not this modern scheme of branding a welfare system as "insurance" to fake that it is financially responsible.
It is light on detail but that feels tangential to me? Much like private insurance schemes, state healthcare systems necessarily have a limit on care/expense.
> He clearly isn't advocating for what would be called universal state-funded healthcare in the modern context ... He appears to be talking about ... certain rare events
He uses terms like "common hazards of life", "the case of sickness", and "comprehensive social insurance". I find it hard to believe this doesn't include assistance for the most common health issues like arthritis, diabetes, cancer, and so on.
"common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision" does not technically include arthritis, diabetes, cancer and so on. Most people can make adequate provisions against those things. The median wage in the west is north of $50,000 - that is a huge amount of slack available for saving for the likelihood of sickness.
And insurance in that passage probably means actual insurance. The modern conception of universal government funded healthcare is a long way from that.
If you focus on specific phrases I'm certainly happy to admit it is a reasonable read. The issue is in context of the entire sentences and, indeed, the nature of the book itself it isn't the most likely meaning of the passage. He's not advocating for universal, government funded healthcare in the sense that it gets used in modern everyday conversation.
I spent 3 quite long comments explaining what I think Hayek is advocating for and why it isn't accurate to call it "universal, government funded healthcare". If you can't come up with a more specific question after reading all that then I am at a loss on how to assist you.
Maybe check your epistemology: perhaps other folks know more and better?
I don't think it's actually intended to be helpful and probably needs to go away.
The people in power WANT the social safety net to fail. That is why it fails!