In a message dated 6/19/03 10:28:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>In a message dated 6/19/03 6:28:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> >The main "good" it provides is a negative one, that of keeping 
>>homelessness
>> >
>> >and starvation to a low enough level to prevent political instability.
>> >
>>This of course presumes that the welfare state reduces homelessness and
>>starvation rather than encouraging it.
>
>Of course.  But what it's proponents intend and what it actually does may
>be 
>two different things.  Then too, although non-statist alternatives might
>
>reduce destitution, they might also carry unacceptable costs to the ruling
>
>class.  What's efficient from the perspective of the general welfare may
>be 
>quite inefficient for those currently benefitting from the state.
>
>Tolstoy had a little parable along these lines that beautifully describes
>
>the mindset of the corporate liberal:  a humane farmer took extraordinary
>
>measures to make life more comfortable for his cattle.  He had his hired
>
>hands take them out of the pen for walks; he played music for them; he
>
>bought better food, etc.  He was asked, "But wouldn't it be a lot less
>
>complicated, if their welfare is your main goal, to just knock down the
>
>fence?"  The farmer replied:  "But then I couldn't milk them."

An apt and amusing metaphor, Kevin!

David

Reply via email to