Tag: welfare state

Andrew Yang’s UBI Plan is No Breath of Fresh Air

Glenn Verasco | Thailand

If there’s one welfare state proposition that makes Libertarians reconsider their anti-government position, it might be UBI (Universal Basic Income). The concept of UBI is simple: every person in a given country gets cash from the government every month. Rather than rationing food, energy, or clothes like a purely Socialist society, a nation with UBI allows those on the receiving end to decide which of their needs should be met the same way people who earn their own money do.

Continue reading “Andrew Yang’s UBI Plan is No Breath of Fresh Air”


The Free Market Can Be Used To Preserve Tradition

Daniel Szewc | Poland

One of the most common mistakes made by political enthusiasts across the political spectrum, is the false notion that traditionalism can only exist and flourish under a market mutilated by many regulations, as well as at least basic forms of state redistribution. To best expose the problem with this idea at large, it’s worth viewing the subject from a broader perspective.

In the most basic sense, value systems compete between each other, and have done so since the beginning of civilization itself. This can be expressed by the fact that societies with good values turn out to out perform and take over societies with lesser values. All is well and fair with this, as long as deceit and force aren’t involved in the process of internal value changes. These occur in cases of revolutions installed by external powers (such as the Bolshevik Revolution, started thanks to German funding of Lenin), or when the tyranny of the majority (i.e democratic rule) takes control of societal values, as well as regulates the market, especially when it comes to the right to discriminate, or through redistribution. For it is because of the last two, that traditionalism has been abandoned in the West. Since tradition is the result of constant rivalry between moral values, and mutual discrimination is the tool by which the power of each competing world view is expressed, not letting competition happen creates a lack of clashes between the two. The older a tradition/value is, (for example the long for truth), the more, according to probability, enemies it had to face in the past, making it more likely to win with new competitors on the market of ideas. A good example of this happening in history, is the high quality of the press in the past, during an era when no failing businesses were saved, which systematically prevented the press from spreading, what we now call “fake news”- if any newspaper decided to publish false information, it would go bankrupt- starting a business was extremely simple in the past, and their market competition would therefore destroy them- not to mention the boycotts of their good, otherwise known as market discrimination.

The other problem causing the fail of traditional values in modern times, is the welfare state. If we look at history, the only people to die of hunger (excluding times of famine, and extremely rare exceptions), were units who were asocial and wouldn’t receive any help, because nobody in society wanted to help them. How much of a bad human being do you have to be, for literally nobody to help you? In contrast, the modern era allows people to completely detach themselves from society, dismiss the idea of having children (why would they, if they’ll get state help when they are old or sick?), and in general become parasites of the system. The same holds for representatives of ALL inferior value systems, and ones that are purely against Western interpretations of personal freedom.

Those who favor tradition often note, from the depths of their hearts, that single mothers and poor people must be helped! There are two problems with this. For one, the innocence attributed to poor people, is the result of poor people, historically having to appeal to society as good, or else nobody would help them. In the case of the help being state organized, and therefore ending the risk of not receiving any help, laziness and egoism may kick in in poor people. The second problem with is, is that the less dangerous a societal position is, (“Oh no! How will I feed my children!”), the less likely people are to fight off becoming part of it.

A typical example of a situation like this is of a man who leaves his woman and children alone, without funds to live. In the past, this meant uncertainty and extreme stress caused by financial risk for the mother, which caused the man to be seen as a monster, and people discriminated against him, because of what tradition would consider to be poor character. Nowadays, even though leaving your family is still frowned upon, people are less sharp against such deeds, as the mother isn’t in a position as bad as she would have been under a free market, which is precisely why more men leave their wives/partners with their children, than ever before.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Fathers Matter, Yet Our State and Culture Want to Take Them Away

By Jack Parkos | United States

It’s fathers day, and in spite of what some feminist may tell you, it is an important holiday. Why? Because fathers matter. We all know mothers matter, too. But fathers never get the same respect. The truth is both parents matter. Studies show boys need a proper father figure in their life. This does not mean a single mother is a bad parent. It just means a boy needs a father to teach him how to become a man.

Numerous studies have shown what happens when there is not a father present in the home of a child. When a father is not present children are more likely to engage in crime, be incarcerated, take drugs, and be poor in their own adulthood. Meanwhile, when a father is present the likelihood of all this drops. There also are some other positives. Girls are less likely to become pregnant as a teen with a father in the household. Romantic relationships for these girls will also be more positive. And of course, boys with a good father will be more likely to be good fathers themselves.

The lack of fatherhood does a lot of damage to children, and this is seen at its worse in the black community. Lack of fatherhood is a problem for all communities and has increased majorly in the United States, especially in the black community.  Radio Show host Larry Elder cites that out-of-wedlock births increased in the black community from 25 percent in 1965 to 73 percent in 2015, while also increasing among whites from 5 percent to 25 percent across the same time period. Overall, the percentage of American children who grew up without fathers increased from 5 percent in 1960 to 41 percent in 1995.

One reason for the increase in single motherhood is the massive welfare state. With all the welfare offered for single mothers, the state is encouraging men to leave and encouraging mothers to be single. Whether intentional or not, this is a consequence of a massive welfare state.

Another reason for fathers leaving is cultural. The cultural war on fathers. There is a cultural shift from neo-Marxist feminists trying to destroy fatherhood. They claim that recognizing the importance of fatherhood is part of “the patriarchy” in America and that fatherhood is not needed. There was a hashtag #endfathersday going around. While this was started as a hoax on 4chan and only some of them were actually serious, feminists are still trying to change the holiday. Could you imagine the outrage if someone suggested we make mothers day a “Men’s day”?

The solution to the war on fathers will be more a cultural movement and not based on government policy. (However, ending the massive welfare state that encourages single motherhood is essential).  If you’re lucky enough to be with your father today, and he is and was a good dad, remember to thank him!

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

There Is No Such Thing As Charitable Government

By Joseph Brown | United States

Among the most volatile hot-button issues in America today is the concept of the welfare state. In a society as increasingly polarized as the United States, opinions regarding its virtue are just as divided as the nation is.

An initiative as expansive and parasitic as the welfare state has influence in the lives of each and every American, yet despite its enormous implications, there are many who are unaware of how exactly it affects them.

In its basic form, welfare refers to actions of service given willingly from one entity in an effort to promote the health, happiness, or fortune of another. Now I know what you’re thinking: If that’s really all that welfare is, then why has it created such a fuss? The concepts of giving and compassion are generally accepted as basic standards of humanity throughout the world in virtually every culture.

The answer is: welfare in the state and welfare in the individual are founded upon completely separate principles.

Welfare, as defined and practiced by the state, is the involuntary collection and redistribution of wealth by its own standards. Thus, welfare by the state is deprived of the only aspect of giving that actually makes something of any moral worth. This missing ingredient is, of course, free will.

What is the value of a gift, if you were required to give it? Most people would agree that providing for the poor is a noble pursuit. I am completely within my own rights as an individual if I decided to give my lunch to a homeless man in act of kindness on my way to work. Likewise, I am equally within my own rights to exercise judgment to keep my lunch for myself. The problem arises if another person held a gun to my head, and demanded that I surrender my lunch to the homeless man. As ridiculous as this sounds, that is precisely how the government works.

The state has confused compulsion with charity.

The esteemed American economist and social theorist, Thomas Sowell, commented on the American welfare state when he said: “I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

So long as the resources in your possession are rightfully yours by merit of your own effort, you are absolutely free to give or keep them whenever you want, to whoever you please, without government interference… unless you live in the “land of the free”.

The problem with the welfare state isn’t that it wants to provide for the poor and needy. The problem is that it uses illegal and immoral methods of coercion to accomplish its goals. Thus, any moral “high ground” the government thinks it has when it gives to others is immediately reversed when it steals your money to do so.

“What, so you just want these people to starve? It’s our responsibility to help them!”

Sound familiar?

Well luckily for our good-hearted friends on the left, there are countless ways to help those in need without involving the government. What if I told you that there are over 1.5 million registered nonprofit organizations in the U.S.? These numbers include public charities, private foundations, and other types of nonprofit organizations, whose mission is mobilizing the public to provide for the needy. Statistics made by the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society show that over 971 million people volunteer in a typical year across the globe, and the estimated monetary value of these volunteers’ time has exceeded 1.5 trillion dollars in just under a decade.

It’s ironic that the same people who deny the potential of the free market in comparison to the state could be found participating in private institutions such as charities that do the government’s job, only more efficiently.

Welfare has turned into something of a cursed word in the conservative realm of intellectual thought, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Objection to the seizing of private assets to use in a federal agenda is not an objection to kindness. The private sector is perfectly capable to provide welfare.

Stuart W. Holliday, the President and CEO of the Meridian International Center, demonstrated the enormous power of the private sector when he said:

“…corporations are championing employee-led initiatives and corporate social responsibility, while innovative NGOs are harnessing the talents of volunteers in new and powerful ways. On the road to economic recovery, these combined efforts at stimulating volunteerism have a great deal to offer.”

The first step in creating a charitable society is abolishing the system that robs the individual of their own rights of self-determination. The people of our country don’t need government to tell them how to practice basic human kindness. True welfare cannot be synthesized.

“…free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.” -C.S. Lewis.

Featured image source.

Is Welfare Better Than a Job? In 15 States, It Is.

According to NPR, only 55% of families that are receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits have one family member that is working. In fifteen U.S. states, the other 45% of recipients are making the right choice to not work.

According to 2013 Cato Institute Research, there are 15 states in which welfare recipients actually make more than full-time minimum wage workers. This study was conducted using a single mother with two children as their welfar package example. The welfare recipients also make more than a starting-wage secretary in 39 states and more than a first-year teacher in 11 states.

According to the study, welfare recipients will make double what a 40-hour-work-week minimum wage worker will make in most of these states.

The states (in order of smallest pay discrepancy to largest) include Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Nevada, California, Maryland, Vermont, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Hamshire, Washington D.C., New Jersey, Massachusets, and Hawaii. Data used for the study has been updated for today’s numbers. Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina were not a part of the study as they did not (and still do not) have a state-mandated minimum wage. Tennessee and Mississippi have joined the list as they no longer have a state-mandated minimum wage.

The top ten of the previously mentioned 15 states has welfare recipients making $10 an “hour” more than their working counterparts. Their hourly “wage” is determined by taking their total weekly welfare benefits and dividing it by forty hours.

The top eight states have their welfare recipients making over $20 an hour for over $43,330 in a pre-tax wage equivalent.

Perhaps one of the most interesting “states” is Washington D.C.  On this list of 15, they had the highest minimum wage of anyone at $12.50 an hour. Their welfare recipients make $11.93 an “hour” more than full-time minimum wage workers.

Topping the list, though, is Hawaii. A single mother with two kids will make $19.88 an “hour” more than a minimum wage worker in the state. Their 2017 minimum wage was $9.25 an hour. This means that their welfare recipients made $29.13 an “hour”. This is about the average wage of an electrical engineering technician. It is very much worth noting that Hawaii has the second highest state personal income tax in the country at eleven percent.

This study is an obvious example of why welfare benefits need to be lowered. What motivation is there to get a job when you can $60,000 a year in Hawaii in welfare benefits?