Yale Political Union

ypu.jpg

I had the privilege last night of addressing the Yale Political Union on the topic: “Resolved: The State ought not provide welfare.” It was a thoroughly delightful evening. I was greatly impressed by the participants, who demonstrated that one can be passionate about important topics and still open to arguments and evidence offered by those who see the world differently. The rebuttals and counter-rebuttals offered by the students also demonstrated that there’s a reason that Yale has a reputation for attracting brilliant young minds.

After the event came to a close, I invited the hard core (of various persuasions) for more discussion over two of the main college-student food groups, the beer group and the pizza group. The conversation was stimulating and the beer and pizza were pretty good, to boot.

The event was arranged by Lea Oksman, whom I met last summer when she was a participant in the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellowship program. I am grateful to her for being so persistent in getting me to agree to the event, as I had a really wonderful time.

6 Responses to “Yale Political Union”

  2. Tom G. Palmer

    I worked off of rather rough notes.

    The initial presentation went, as I recall, more or less as follows.

    Exordium (to put the audience in the right frame of mind): I thanked them for the opportunity to address them, greeted them as a member of the Oxford Union, and stated that I was unlikely to change anyone’s mind completely in one evening, but that I hoped to plant some seeds of doubt about the welfare state.

    I then discussed how various totalitarian systems had risen and fallen — fascism, national socialism, communism, but that one state system had conquered most of the planet. I identified that system as the welfare state, in its various manifestations, and asked who was most responsible for it. The answer, of course, was Bismarck (I drew on a blackboard a cartoon drawing of his Pickelhaube and giant mustache as a hint to whom I had in mind); I then quoted from one of his speeches on the purpose of the compulsory state pension system, followed by A.J.P. Taylor’s evaluation of the net effect of Bismarck’s innovation. (I thereby insinuated [in the sense that Cicero uses the term in De Inventione] that to support the welfare state is to be in rather bad company; that there may be reason to find it suspect.)

    I then offered a series of arguments designed to undercut the legitimacy of the welfare state. In order, they were:

    1. The American welfare state is not authorized by the mention of “general welfare” in the U.S. Constitution. I explained how the general welfare would be realized by the creation of a system of justice and security through the delegation of enumerated and limited powers by the Constitution (see Art. 1, Sect. 8), but that that did not include any plenary power to do whatever was deemed to enhance welfare. (Otherwise, why enumerate powers at all?) Moreover, the language specifies the *general* welfare, and the qualifier general distinguishes it from the particular welfare of this or that person or group. It is a limiting, and not an enabling, qualification. The point of that was to eliminate an obvious objection at the outset and to set the discussion within the framework of a government of limited powers.

    2. It displaces other institutions for the provision of social welfare. I asked them how many had been exposed to one of the great examples of American popular culture…the Flintstones. All hands went up. I asked where “Barney” and “Fred” go in the evenings. The answer, of course, is bowling with their lodge brothers. I asked how many people present were members of lodges or whose parents were members. I then explained the role played by the friendly societies and mutual aid societies that have been studied so carefully by David Green and David Beito (two exceptionally important and talented historians), with numbers illustrating the rise of such organizations. I gave other evidence of the collapse of so many institutions of civil society (especially among the poorest of the poor).

    3. It undermines personal character. I argued that a state that takes responsibility for one’s welfare has a debilitating effect on character, a point I illustrated with an individual illustrative example of someone I had known. The story (a true one) was easily grasped and plausible as an illustration of a general truth. (It concerned someone who had refused to get health or accident insurance, thus putting the assets of family and friends at risk, on the grounds that if anything bad were to happen, that person could always go to the state hospital for free treatment.) Personal responsibility is undermined by such provision of services.

    4. The welfare state undermines the rule of law. I discussed how the interest theory of rights (see Joseph Raz and Jeremy Waldron) that is at the foundation of welfare state approaches generates conflicting rights and requires a “balancing” of rights, with attendant negative effects for the rule of law and for the idea of a rights-based polity. (I’ve written on the topic elsewhere — see my essay on “Saving Rights Theory from Its Friends” and my reviews of Cass Sunstein’s books)

    5. It undermines the pursuit of happiness. I contrasted the understanding of welfare in the welfare state with Aristotle’s approach to happiness (an activity in accordance with human virtue) and showed how it is the activity, and hence the achievement, that is a constitutive element of happiness. (The language of the Declaration of Independence refers to “life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness,” after all.)

    I concluded in the usual way, with a quick summation, an appeal to justice and the pursuit of happiness, and thanks for their attention. What followed was a remarkable display by the students of fair minded rebuttal, counter-rebuttal, and challenges and responses.

    October 29, 2005 at 12:59 am