_Talking Philosophy_ (http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/)
The Philosophers' Magazine Blog
Delusions of Self-Reliance
Posted by _Mike LaBossiere_ (http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?author=12)
on February 27, 2012 _Leave a comment_
(http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4271#respond) (21) _Go to comments_
(http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4271#comments)
When the Tea Party movement was in the upswing, comedic critics of the
movement loved to point to the wonderfully inconsistent command to _“keep your
government hands off my Medicare.”_
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E5D71330F933A15751C1A96F9C8B63)
While it is easy enough to
dismiss this remark as being an aberration, it actually seems to represent a
relatively common ignorance regarding government assistance.
_Paul Krugman _
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share)
notes that some of the
people who are very vocal in their opposition to government assistance and who
often support politicians who promise to eliminate such assistance are
themselves recipients of that assistance. This is based on the research of
_Suzanne Mettler_
(http://government.arts.cornell.edu/assets/faculty/docs/mettler/submergedstat_mettler.pdf)
: Percentage of Program Beneficiaries Who
Report They “Have Not Used a Government Social Program” Program “No, Have
Not Used a Government Social Program” 529 or Coverdell 64.3 Home
Mortgage Interest Deduction 60.0 Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit 59.6
Student Loans 53.3 Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit 51.7 Earned Income Tax
Credit 47.1 Social Security—Retirement & Survivors 44.1 Pell Grants 43.1
Unemployment Insurance 43.0 Veterans Benefits (other than G.I. Bill) 41.7
G.I. Bill 40.3 Medicare 39.8 Head Start 37.2 Social Security Disability
28.7 Supplemental Security Income 28.2 Medicaid 27.8 Welfare/Public
Assistance 27.4 Government Subsidized Housing 27.4 Food Stamps 25.4
Since all of the above are government social programs, 100% of the people
using them have, in fact, used government social programs.
In some cases, such as the tax deductions or tax credits, people might
believe that these are not government social programs. After all, when most
people think of a government social program they think of the government
handing out food stamps, cheese, health care or money. However, these programs
are government social programs. While people no doubt think that they have
earned the credit or deduction, they are actually getting a financial
benefit from the government at the expense of the taxpayer. For example, in
the
case of mortgage deductions this means that the taxpayers are subsidizing
the home owner’s mortgage by allowing him or her to pay less taxes because
s/he owns a house. While this is not as obviously a social program as getting
food stamps, it is essentially the same. Naturally, it can be seen as a
negative program (paying less) rather than a positive program (getting
something) but the results are the same-either way, the person gains from a
government social program.
As noted above, people who are opposed to government social programs seem
to often be unaware that they themselves are beneficiaries of such programs
and they are, as in the quote above, often inclined to want to keep these
programs. As _Paul Krugman_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share)
contends,
these folks can hold to inconsistent views because they simply do not realize
that the programs they wish to keep benefiting from are the programs that
they also think they wish to eliminate. That is, they are operating under a
delusion of self-reliance when they are, in fact, benefiting from the very
thing they profess to loath. This creates an interesting epistemic and
ethical problem. That is, they do not know they are doing wrong by their own
principles.
To be fair, there are obviously people who are well aware of that these
programs are government social programs and they oppose them. Perhaps some of
these people even refuse to avail themselves of such programs and live in a
manner consistent with the principle that the state should not provide ass
istance to people.
Even if there are not such people, the arguments against such programs can
still have merit. After all, the mere fact that many (or some) people who
are against government social programs in principle also use such programs
does not prove that the arguments against such programs are flawed. To
think otherwise would be to fall into a classic ad homimen fallacy (_ad
hominem tu quoque_ (http://www.amazon.com/42-Fallacies-ebook/dp/B004ASOS2O) ).
They might, in fact, be excellent arguments.
That said, the fact that people avail themselves of these programs in
seeming ignorance of their true nature is rather interesting. It does suggest
that at least some of the people who are critical of said programs are
critical from ignorance and that perhaps they would modify their views if they
were aware that they benefited from what they have been attacking. At the
very least informing these people would allow them to act consistently with
their principles by refusing to avail themselves of such programs. They could
simply refuse to claim the deductions and credits, mail back any checks
they receive from the state, and refuse to use Medicare. After all, while not
practicing what one preaches does not show that the preaching is
incorrect, one should (morally) follow one’s own sermons or at least have the
decency to remain silent and thus avoid compounding one’s sin with hypocrisy.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
