After the Welfare State

by Tom G. Palmer (Editor)

Young people today are being robbed. Of their rights. Of their freedom. Of their dignity. Of their futures. The culprits? My generation and our predecessors, who either created or failed to stop the world straddling engine of theft, degradation, manipulation, and social control we call the welfare state.

Genres: Politics, Economics, Nonfiction

136 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[JP · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was fun to read, but mostly because it was accessible and short. As a leftist economics and history major (political science minor) I enjoy seeing what the "other side" has to say.

I did, in fact, learn some new things from this book, and obtained a desire to learn more about topics mentioned therein (like welfare history, for instance). Further, it was extremely well-argued. Sources are brought in all over the place, which I will be reading into, and which I was quite happy about. That's why it didn't get two stars :-)

That being said, I do know my history and my economics, and I can confidently say that authors repeatedly use dishonest statements to make their point (which can't be avoided when trying to re-write history with a right-wing filter). I don't want to use too many examples, since I'm not trying to re-quote a ton, but here are two examples of this academic dishonesty:

"The poverty rate in the US, which had been falling steeply in the 1940s, 1950s, and even 1960s, stopped falling in the 1970s, when the Great Society programs were entrenched, and began to climb slightly, while labor force participation among young African American males dropped substantially." (pg. 44)- First, this came from Charles Murray, who shouldn't even be considered an academic. His racist, misrepresentative brand of sociology isn't held in high academic esteem among professionals. At all. So using his claims makes you seem weirdly one-sided. Secondly, poverty measurements weren't even developed until the 1950s, and weren't used and applied until the 1960s. Thirdly, the statement is implying a falsehood. The majority of economists attribute the bottoming-out of American poverty in the early 70s with The Great Society. The poverty began rising in force when neoliberal, supply-side economics became the norm under Reagan. The Great Society was never continued in a meaningful way, and so poverty inched back up in our market-obsessed nation. It was the social welfare that these authors hate, but which has been proven (whatever its funding problems) to lessen, if not eradicate, poverty in the places its been most intensely applied. Lastly, they imply that this welfare incentivised black youth to abandon work and collect from the government, but that ignores the contextual realities of poverty in inner-city environs. "White flight" is a well-documented phenomenon wherein middle class whites left urban neighborhoods in droves for the suburbs in the 60s and 70s, which sucked the entrepreneurial base out of cities, leaving those slacking blacks without opportunity to show their productive aspirations. We can't all start businesses. And we can't sell goods to people without enough money. This coupled with the massive decline in industrial production (where huge numbers of black men were employed) is a much better explanation for the lack of labor-force participation by black youth than that they were placated by the (woefully inadequate) American welfare state. Don't ignore history and contextual significance to make your argument, Palmer :-\

"The very politicians who portray themselves as friends of the poor when they distribute food subsidies to them, are the very same politicians who vote to keep food prices high by mandating floor prices for food; the same politicians who impose labor market entry restrictions through licensing and price unskilled workers out of the market through minimum wage laws offer income payments to those they forced out of employment through their policies." So the author unfairly presents his arguments in two ways here. First, food provisions for the poor and price floors serve two distinct goals, and the latter doesn't offset the former (as they imply- this is well-documented). Food subsidies ensure the poor can eat (these effects are well-documented; food stamps definitely, without a doubt, do their job of making sure people eat instead of go hungry; if anything, food stamps aren't funded enough). Price floors ensure that there's never a shortage of a good by ensuring that people can't buy out food stocks, which happened in the 1930s, contributing to millions of deaths from starvation as stores couldn't restock fast enough. As for minimum wages, employment, and union restrictions on entering, minimum wages are necessary, and this is well-documented. Everyone's employment isn't a net good for workers if they're employed below or at subsistence levels. If the wealthy don't want to subsidize the unemployed through their tax dollars, then they should've proved over the last 150 years that they'd solve the problem through independent initiative by employing those marginal workers at a loss to their companies (since that's essentially what they're doing through unemployment payments, except they're not benefiting from the worker's added production). The fact that the market didn't solve the employment problem (there was often massive unemployment and/or starvation and deprivation amongst the unprotected working class before governmental intervention - just look at Das Kapital) is well-established, and they go on to confuse the reader by presenting more half truths later on which don't apply theory to practice but make their argument seem better.

That's why it didn't get 4 stars.

Overall, I think the authors made some great points in this book, and they present a different way to look at the world than most people are used to. I did enjoy reading it, even if I had to reread some idiotic passages 2 or 3 times to grasp that people actually present this as unadulterated fact. I will suggest that you pick up the book if its available to you, though I caution you to take everything you read with a grain of salt. If it seems conservative, it's probably suspect. Conservatives (who are predominantly from a white class of historically privileged individuals) aren't good with history, context, equity, or advancement for humanity. Therefore I will encourage you to seek all angles of the truth by assessing all sides of the issues, but lean left. You can always move a little to the right as you get older.

Entertainment: 1/2 Star
Education: 1/2 Star
Thesis: 0
Readability: 1 Star
Inspiration: 1 Star

[Dwayne Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

A number of very good essays from several authors. A bit repetitious, but not too bad.

[Otto Lehto · Rating 3 out of 5]

An easy-to-read collection of essays from a classical liberal standpoint.

As with any ideological tome, little room is left for "the other side" of the argument, and some of the essays (this book having multiple contributors) are better than others, but the editorship of Tom G. Palmer has produced a neatly packaged critique of the welfare state model and of the moral necessity of poor relief.

Only the enduring faith (based on the allotted page numbers) put into mutual aid and fraternal societies, gets on my nerve; if you wish to dismantle the welfare state, you ought to propose something better than to replace them with the Masons. I'm not buying it. We still need state relief, unemployment benefits and various other public good provisos. The case for the welfare state is not quite done. The best one-size-fits all solution would be, in my opinion, a version of the Basic Income / Negative Income Tax - non-work obligation, non-means testing - variety, which would eliminate 90% of the bad effects of welfare.

However, with all its ideological slant, the book is worth reading, if only for the lengthy essay by Palmer that ends the book, titled "Poverty, Morality and Liberty" which is a nice comprehensive philosophical, economic and moral overview of questions and arguments at hand. It sums up nicely the libertarian and liberal answers to the challenge of welfare socialism. It also leaves the door open for a criticism of the liberal program from a moral standpoint - even while thoroughly dismantling any faith in the old 20th century welfare state.

It seems we need something beyond welfare statism and classical liberalism. What is it?

[Indigo Curnick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Generally very good. The discussion of the housing market crash was excellent; although some of the essays are a little simplistic. For what it is, an introduction to the problems imposed by welfare, it excels

[José Antonio Lopez · Rating 3 out of 5]

After the Welfare State is a compilation of essays that address the problem with government intervention and assistance in the US and other countries like Italy and Greece that are in a much dire situation today. Besides explaining how it has failed the people, Tom Palmer's selection explain the origin of the Welfare as a control mechanism since the Bismark era.

The last section analyzes different programs and their costs and effects, as well as some evidence that they are not necessary nor sufficient.

The books is oriented to young idealists who are honestly concern with injustice and poorness. Young people who unfortunately believe that the government has a role in alleviating this suffering, yet don't understand how the transfer of wealth is un-ethical and ineffective.

Being collection of essays the book lacks flow but is a good starting point to address this subject. The format allows to organize discussion group that can be enriched with further readings and research.

[Geyang Wu · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you think government should and would take care of you, you should read this book.

I love they sell the book for $0.99 on Amazon. Liberties don't believe in intellectual property, and they implemented what they believe.

[Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read. Favorite line, "The exercise of power requires justification; the exercise of liberty does not." Anthony de Jasay

[Emanuele Parrinello · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una lettura che Italia tutti dovrebbero fare. In Italia, mediamente, il "welfare state" è percepito come un totem sacro intoccabile e ne ignoriamo, involontariamente o intenzionalmente, il lato oscuro. In tal modo persistiamo ostinatamente su una strada foriera di problemi presenti e futuri.
Il libro è costituito da una collezione di saggi, talvolta un pelo ripetitivi.

[Gregory Dolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting survey of the history of welfare. I think if you're looking for something specific, this is probably not the best book for you, however, it covers a lot of ground and gives you tons of avenues for further reading. I would absolutely recommend this to anyone who's interested

[Edward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant summary of how America worked far better before the welfare state, through voluntary charity, fraternal and benevolent organizations

[Davidwmolson]

Worth it to read that Greece and Italy were once prospering countries, and to read of the various ways we handled healthcare and welfare before government got involved.

[Miguel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una colección de ensayos que buscan aportar evidencia entorno a la inviabilidad de los "Estados de Bienestar", recopilados por el autor liberal Tom Palmer, y con edición bajo el auspicio del Instituto Cato.

Sobre la obra como un todo es importante señalar la regularidad en la calidad de los ensayos y el cuidado en su selección ya que permite desde diferentes áreas de estudio, pero con el mismo enfoque liberal clásico, abordar el tema del "Estado de Bienestar" como un problema moderno que tiene alternativas. En forma particular, son especialmente destacables los ensayos históricos sobre las sociedades mutualistas y de socorro, que permiten conocer una parte de la historia de la cooperación para la mejora social sobre la que poco o nada se habla, en buena parte opacada por la historia de los sindicatos y de la caridad. También, son de sobra interesantes los ensayos de historia económica sobre el ascenso y caída del "sueño italiano", y de la crisis de la vivienda que originó la recesión de 2008.

Sin embargo, hay que recalcar que en algunos ensayos se nota un sesgo ideológico extremadamente marcado que les resta interés y baja su credibilidad, como es el caso del ensayo histórico "El legado de Bismarck" del propio Palmer, donde en su análisis de la construcción del estado benefactor cae en dos alegatos débiles, el primero al incluir a Marx y Engels como una suerte de autores que refuerzan la idea de un "Estado de Bienestar", cuando los principales promotores del mismo han sido los socialdemocrátas y social liberales, no tanto los comunistas; y el segundo, al usar un reductio ad Hitlerum, en donde manifiesta que los nazis mantuvieron y reforzaron las prestaciones sociales estatales durante su régimen, buscando vincular de manera inequívoca el "Estado de Bienestar" con el totalitarismo, aunque la mayoría de democracias Occidentales ampliaron de manera avasalladora el volumen de ayudas y prestaciones sociales en el mismo período (e.g. New Deal).

A pesar de ello, es una obra interesante para cualquier interesado en la ideas de la libertad o que busca una visión crítica del mundo.

8/10
_________________________________________________________

"Los pensadores liberales clásicos, a pesar de los fuertes desacuerdos que suelen tener entre sí, han estado de acuerdo en que la creación de riqueza es la solución de alivio a la pobreza. Además, están de acuerdo en que existe una jerarquía de medios para ello, que comprende, en forma escalonada, desde la responsabilidad personal y la autoayuda hasta el socorro mutuo, la caridad, y la opción menos preferida, la obligatoriedad estatal"

[Michael Morrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

"After the Welfare State" is another of those wonderful and excellent little volumes from Jameson Books that people could and should buy by the carton to distribute, especially among young people.
This one, though, might not be especially accessible to young students, especially of government schools: It has a more complex vocabulary than some of the other Jameson Books.
College students should have no difficulties, and perhaps above-average high school students also should be able to read and understand -- and, in fact, it's very important they be given the chance to read and understand these ideas and concepts.
Some of my favorite pro-human rights and individual liberty thinkers have works present in this slim volume, including David Beito, Johan Norberg, and Michael Tanner.
Tom Palmer is listed as editor, but I believe that means, in this case, he's the guy who chose the contents and writers.
This is a book I will keep beside my office desk for use as a reference work. It is one I more than admire. It is one I want to share with many thousands of teachers, parents, schools, libraries, and especially with young people who might not get much opportunity to learn about human rights and individual liberty otherwise.
Jameson Books is doing more for genuine education in these United States than most institutions that claim to be trying to educate.

[Lenny D · Rating 2 out of 5]

Servicable for exactly why I picked it up: a straight presentation of classical liberal principles and orthodoxy. The selections are well-organized, but the philosophy is spotty enough to fall short of convincing. The first section establishes the important concept that policies enacted during boom times are proving to be ruinous in a waning economic environment in Europe, and that all indications are that the USA will be similarly afflicted. The best essay of the collection was the one in which the editor, Palmer, recounts the origin of state welfare considerations in Bismarckian realpolitik, as a hook to sink into the lower classes. It goes from informative to slightly cartoonish, however, when the non-sequitor of fraternal insurance clubs is raised in the hopes of convincing us that these private clubs provided better and freer social security than does the state. Finally, Palmer presents his synthesis of the moral, social, and political threads of classical liberalism. It is, as usual, dogmatic in nature. The book is a neutral statement of position, not a salvo by any means.

[Hayley Patterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

For the most part, this book is a great introduction to classical liberal philosophy re: the welfare state. The book's arguments are stated in easily understood terms, and cannot really be accused of having any partisan bias.

However, I believe this book was written for right-libertarians and classical liberals, which is fine for what it is. My qualms are more from a personal ideological standpoint, and thus may not be relevant to many people looking to read this:

As a libertarian with what some may call leftist tendencies (my favorite libertarian authors are Kevin Carson and Roderick Long, among others), I found some articles' versions and perhaps even interpretations of history to be tending towards inadequacy; I felt as though some of them were oversimplified for a number of reasons.

As a primer to classical liberal thought, though, this book's value cannot be overstated. I would recommend it to people trying to learn more about why some people oppose the welfare state, and perhaps to classical liberals who are looking for a number of good arguments.

[Jeffrey Howard · Rating 3 out of 5]

While a few essays were more data dense than I prefer, I found the history of fraternal orders and friendly societies inspiring. It is a shame the growth of government displaced these more efficient, individualized and voluntary forms of charity.

Most individuals will take turns falling on hard times, and fortunately most of humanity still has an impulse to help. Libertarians continue to hold out for the day when government will get out of the way of caring individuals who know better ways to watch after their own communities. Lovers of the freedom philosophy can find hope in this short book, driving toward a day when society's respect for private property and voluntary charity unfettered by government coercion will lift humanity to unprecedented levels of prosperity, peace and tolerance.

[Duy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Người dân Việt Nam khi nhìn vào các nước phát triển thường ngưỡng mộ những gì họ cung cấp cho người dân: giáo dục, y tế, lương hưu... Nhiều dịch vụ công được miễn phí, nhiều cái được trợ cấp. Và chúng ta tự nói với nhau: Xã hội chủ nghĩa là đó chứ là đâu, sao phải tự bịt mắt mình đi theo con đường không biết?
Nhưng cuộc sống là thế, không phải tất cả đều là màu hồng. Ai ngờ rằng sự đình trệ của siêu cường như Italy, vỡ nợ của Hi Lạp và Iceland và nhiều nước phát triển khác, lại là do phúc lợi xã hội, một nấc phát triển cao của xã hội loài người?
Cuốn sách có nhiều chỗ không được rõ ràng và cuốn hút đối với những người không chuyên, nhưng với những người không mấy quan tâm đến kinh tế, vẫn thấy cuốn sách góp phần giải thích cho những gì đang xảy ra trên thế giới, giúp nhìn nhận tốt hơn về xã hội loài người.

[Joshua Chandler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to classical liberalism / libertarianism. Goes beyond the too often cartoonish soundbites of libertarian and fiscal conservative politics in the day to day and offers arguments that at least are internally consistent. I enjoyed particularly the chapters which spoke of mutual aid and friendly societies as an alternative to state assistance to the poor. It was good to read about alternatives rather than simple opposition. Read for free at http://studentsforliberty.org/wp-cont...

[Pieter Vermeulen · Rating 4 out of 5]

After the welfare state is an interesting budle of short essays. The different views on the risks and negative consequences of this welfare state really changed my mind on the subject. It is however, very one-sided as far as the opinions are concerned. Still I want to recommend it to everyone who likes to think about issues concerning our modern society. It is very readable and it only takes you a couple of hours to finish it.

[Sean Rosenthal · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting Quote:

"The seeds of the current crises were planted in 1994 when the US administration announced a grandiose plan to raise homeownership rates in the US from 64 percent to 70 percent...The global financial train wreck was the outcome of one bad policy piled on another; it was a train wreck set in motion by the welfare state."

-Tom G. Palmer, After the Welfare State

[Greg Hadaller · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of essays, not a real book, but they hang together pretty well. None of them are duds. Worthwhile reading, even for a seasoned Libertarian.

[Luka · Rating 5 out of 5]

A criminally underrated book