Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Welfare reform - is there any point?

The following argues that libertarians must never compromise in their advocacy. Arguing for reform of the welfare state is only arguing for more socialism. I can accept that. I experienced this conflict when part of the Libertarianz buteventually found in favour of gradualism - believing some change is better than none - and moved towards ACT.

I still think libertarian ideas largely fall on deaf ears but that shouldn't stop them being expressed. I just opted to argue for the politically possible. Maybe a cop out. I don't know. And some days I'm not even sure if I care any more (BTW I got rid of my welfare reform site. Couldn't afford to keep it going time or moneywise).

Is arguing for reform of the welfare state a waste of time? The current batch of reforms need to go much farther than a National government will take them but the wheels of change sometimes turn very slowly.

Anyway, this piece by  purist libertarian Jacob Hornberger is food for thought:


There is one way — and only one way — to achieve the free society: by strictly hewing to libertarian principles.
While compromising libertarian principles might seem to be a more palatable and more practical way to achieve freedom, nothing could be further from the truth.
In response to our end-of-year letter seeking people’s financial support for The Future of Freedom Foundation, a person wrote me and told me that he has no reservations whatsoever about compromising libertarian principles and embracing reform measures. He told me, therefore, that he had no intention of donating to The Future of Freedom Foundation.
My response to him was very simple: If it is reform of the welfare-warfare state that you want for your life, then go for it. But just don’t pretend that by supporting reform, you are achieving the free society. After all, if all that you’re fighting for is reform, then the most you’re going to get is reform.

More

5 comments:

Jamie said...

Must be like bashing your head up against a brick wall somedays eh?

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Lindsay

"I experienced this conflict when part of the Libertarianz buteventually found in favour of gradualism - believing some change is better than none."

Very wise Lindsay. There is always a tension between the 'ideal' and the achievable, and unless we accept that then we will live our lives in a state of perpetual frustration.

The problem with ideologies, libertarianism included, is that they fail to give sufficient allowance for human frailty.

The socialists seek to change the human condition through collectivism, and the libertarians whom I have greater respect for, seek the same outcome through individualism. Both ideologies are utopian to a greater or lesser extent.

They all work fine on paper though. :-)

Anonymous said...

Libertarianism is difficult in a political sense but does achieve a purity of thought I have not discovered anywhere else. I lament the passing of the Libz but do not rue a second of the time I spent pondering their principles.

Cadwallader

Anonymous said...

The problem with ideologies, libertarianism included, is that they fail to give sufficient allowance for human frailty.

on the contrary - libertarianism is the only "ideology" that accounts for human frailty. There is nothing but personal responsibly - if you don't take responsibility for yourself, that's absolutely fine. That's your choice --- and you live (or not, as the case may be) with the outcome of that choice.

Dave Christian said...

We are best served by the practice of both approaches. I agree with Jacob Hornberger that no individual can effectively promote gradualism and the libertarian vision at the same time. Those who do end up alienating their supporters (e.g. there are plenty of names that could be inserted here). I for one am glad that FFF is out there promoting genuine libertarian values and that you are out there promoting welfare reform in New Zealand.