There does not seem to be any principled objection to caring for people unable to support themselves. There seem to be two practical objections that are commonly raised. The first is the Libertarian argument that every member of society should be responsible for themselves as discussed above.
Second, many people are troubled by cheating. That is, someone getting benefits for which they are not in need. This tends to be less of a problem with old age benefits, but has long been a sore point with regard to disability. This is also discussed above.
The issue then becomes one of resources. Can a society afford to provide for the old, the young and the infirm? Obviously a society at a subsistence level faces different challenges than a wealthy one. For developed societies, the society can afford the costs, it is just a question of what other activities will be restricted to pay for the support. Since most developed countries have solved this redistribution problem in large part it can certainly be done. Where there is a will there is a way.
In addition to all the issues raised for support of the nonworking mentioned above, there are some additional ones for health care. Nonworking support can be handled by distributing funds, and except for the incompetent, it can be expected that most people will be able to decide how to live within the provided budget. The incompetent simply require a proxy.
For health care, matters of appropriate care become difficult to resolve. It is not sufficient to pay for care, who is to decide what, if any, treatment is to be provided? Another objection, the personal responsibility one, arises when poor lifestyle choices cause health problems. Do we treat smokers for lung cancer? If not, do we rescue mountain climbers who fall? Are people mean spirited or just worried about costs? Once again we assume that everyone agrees that each individual should have the best quality of physical well being that they are capable of. It is only issues about how to allocate scare resources that cause disagreement. Once again this is an implementation issue.
Education raises the thorny issue of what is to taught. It is implicitly realized that what one learns at a young age colors one's beliefs for the rest of life. Thus, the choice of curriculum is always a contentious one. In some societies this function is delegated to religious authorities. In developed countries the tendency has been to make it a secular function, sometimes with additional, optional, religious instruction outside the main educational framework. The US has had a mixed model where, while education is mandatory, the school may be state supported, religious or private and secular.
Those who prefer private education have the burden of supporting public education as well and are the most outspoken on the subject. If the funding issues were removed it would seem that resistance would lessen. The issues of what should be taught still need to be addressed, however. If a society is to be pluralistic it would seem that a large component of education should be uniform so that all people share a common core of knowledge. Beyond this people should be free to pursue whatever specialized, optional education they wish.
Extending free education through college should not have any philosophical issues. At one time completion of high school was felt to be not too important for most of society. As the skills required of the workforce increased, society adapted and changed goals. We can expect this trend to continue in the future. So objections are once again related to sources of funding — an implementation issue.
Food support is of the same general class as other assistance already covered. The difference is that, in principal, the targets of support might not be physically disadvantaged in any way. That is, not old, young or infirm. They may just be economically disadvantaged. The usual objections raised for support of the able-bodied once again fall into the Libertarian and cheating categories. The issue separates into those who choose not to support themselves (and possibly their dependents) and those who are trying, but do not earn enough to feed themselves and their dependents properly. The "slackers" have been discussed above. Let us concede that those who are struggling, but not making it, deserve help. We will defer to the implementation discussion whether this help should be in the form of economic or material support.
This goal may be mostly applicable to North America which has a large land area and a decentralized population. As a consequence people and supplies are transported over large distances. Up to 40% of the energy usage in the US is devoted to transportation. Altering this behavior requires rebuilding communities so that domicile, work and shopping are more compact. The love of a private home on a plot of land pushes people into the suburbs and exurbs. They then become dependent on automobiles for access to everything outside the home. Building new compact communities can be expected to provoke strong resistance.
As people have become more urbanized they have lost touch with the natural environment. This has led to the lessening of understanding of our place in the environment. It has also diminished our ability to enjoy the outdoors. That there is a desire for this can be seen in the growth in attendance to national parks. Having a domicile near the natural environment can enhance the daily experience of living and lessen the burden on the few dedicated areas. Resistance to change in land use patterns can be expected to be resisted by current land owners and local municipalities which are geared to a growth model.
The implicit goal of changing the work week is to promote full employment. Objections can be expected from the corporate sector which prefers a labor excess to keep wage pressures down, and a longer work week to lower per employee overhead. Overwork is a driving force for those who fear for their economic well being if they work less. Many are prompted to overwork by excessive pursuit of materialism. Corporate motives can be changed by altering the tax laws so that there is no per capita government overhead, but rather, costs are related to the amount of labor purchased.
As with implicit full employment goals, increasing worker's rights can be expected to be resisted. A long history of the rise of organized labor shows how divisive and violent these objections can be. The objections are related to the perceived differences in aims of management and labor. Changes to the expected roles of business can modify expectations. In some countries workers have a role in company management. The trend towards stock ownership by workers makes them more allied with the overall success of the firm. If companies do not feel disadvantaged relative to their competitors they will be less resistant to a cooperative labor management model.
People seem to have an innate fear of the "other". This has led to discrimination based upon inherent characteristics. We get discrimination based upon race, gender, place of origin and even physical appearance. None of these traits are under the control of either party and thus, are irrational. They are motivated by fear. Fear of losing ones identity, fear of being discriminated against if the other group becomes dominant, or fear of the unknown. In addition people in weakened economic or social circumstances can be placated by making them feel superior to some other group. Obviously, the way to reduce fear of the "other" is through education and economic equalization. Keeping one group down lowers the wealth and potential of a society and creates an indirect burden on everyone. Once people learn that discrimination hurts rather than helps their life goals it can be lessened. The younger generation in the US is much more comfortable with others than prior generations were. Mobility, improved access to information, and direct interactions have led to this outcome.
Modern societies have had a continuing problem with intoxicating substances. Legislative attempts to control use based upon implicit beliefs about people's proper level of personal pleasure have had mixed results. Resistance to change in these policies arises from these fundamental, unexamined, beliefs, as well as the large infrastructure which is economically dependent on control of intoxicants. Even the illegal producers are resistant to change, since legal substances are not as profitable. For a rethinking to take place the medical, societal and economic factors must all be examined and the impact on each affected group be understood.
A similar situation exists with activities considered "sinful" by some and "victimless crimes" by others. Prostitution and gambling are two of the most frequently mentioned. It seems clear that very few people would choose prostitution, except for economic conditions. So the "victimless" issue in probably not true. Even supporters of legalizing prostitution would probably prefer practitioners have better economic alternatives. Gambling is an issue, when illegal, since it provides a source of money for the underground economy. The distaste for gambling as a "sin" has to be balanced with economic costs. Legalized gambling has an impact on society as it acts as a drain on the productive use of money and can, when abused, cause harm to ones immediate family. The rise of legal gambling shows that these attitudes are changing. Good education and a separation of the objections by religious and economic considerations should work as well with other areas typically considered proper for regulation. Typical other current "sin" issues include the feelings towards extra-marital sex, same sex relationships and other religion inspired attitudes.
In the US and parts of Canada the coastal areas are getting over populated and the central areas of the continent are declining. This is causing economic distortions. Real estate prices are rising in coastal areas forcing the growth of sprawl as has been mentioned above. In addition, declining population elsewhere is creating economic hardship and raising the overall costs to society. This imbalance can be addressed by making the conditions leading to this situation less attractive. Objections can be expected from land owners and developers in growing regions as well as others with localized economic interests. Central planning goals do not have to mean centralized planning. Creating suitable conditions can lead to private actions along the desired lines. For the Southwest, for example, water usage and public works projects can have a profound affect on subsequent development and population growth. The creation of Lake Powell is an example of how private development follows public works.
Many of the issues already listed are implicit attempts to deal with the looming energy issues. Global effects are already being noticed as a result of the increased use of energy by mankind. The goals all discussed so far have been aimed towards lowering the dependence on energy. It is now time to address the other side of the problem, the energy supply. Changing the balance of energy supply from fossil fuels has had a long history of vigorous and sometimes violent resistance. Too many organizations and even societies depend upon the current energy policies to want to change. These objections can be overcome, at least in some cases, by inviting participation in the development of new energy technologies. Certainly fossil fuel energy companies are far-seeing enough to know that they will need to develop need business plans if they are to remain viable. Proper policies can get them to participate in new activities. Countries which derive a large amount of their foreign exchange from fossil fuels need to be given time to develop other economic activities, perhaps by inducements from global organizations such as The World Bank. If fossilized material ceases to be wasted as fuel it can continue as a profitable source for chemical feed stocks for a much longer period.
The movement off the land has been going on for thousands of years and it is not realistic to think that this will cease in the near future. However, the numbers of people affected worldwide has been growing and the economic opportunities available in metropolitan centers are limited. Densely populated countries like China and India are now experiencing unprecedented population movements. Land is being taken from the peasants for development and local farming is becoming unprofitable. The economic and cultural dislocations can be minimized if steps are taken to provide substitute economic opportunities in the countryside. This will objected to by the rising capitalist class that finds the influx of cheap labor profitable, but does not have to directly carry the social costs associated with it.
The developed world has move away from a static economy based upon agriculture and inherited land to one based upon the production of material goods. The owners of capital expect to receive a yield on their investments which includes a growth component. Any attempt to restrict the growth of materialism will be resisted by the investor class. As more workers become part owners in firms (either directly or through retirement funds) they will also take on characteristics of the investor class. Finding an alternative "lifestyle" model means getting into "The meaning of life" discussions.
Those that are worried about the need for a continually growing population to support growth will be the strongest opponents of any efforts to alter population dynamics. Thus, this topic is directly related to resolving the "lifestyle" one above. Populations not as dependent on materialism will require lower influx into the work force. As populations become wealthier and as opportunities for women increase there is a natural decline in the birth rate. With only small changes in economic and social status population decline can be expected to occur if it is not deliberately opposed.
Reversing the militarization of the world will be the hardest political change to effect. Most of the developed and developing countries devote a substantial part of their economy to the military/police sector. It provides employment for troops as well as for those building and selling weaponry. Changing the amount spent in these areas can be expected to cause economic dislocation and thus will be resisted by governments as well as the firms involved. In addition much of the population is kept in fear of other countries and thus supports a militaristic economy for "self defense". As long as there is large-scale economic inequality in the world, "the haves" will feel a need to defend themselves against "the have nots". So changes in militarism will require new mechanisms for settling international imbalances and planned changes to the economic sectors currently benefiting from militarism.
Large sectors of the world have been deforested, strip mined, drained or flooded, or otherwise transformed for economic development. This has now reached a level where it has had an impact on global climate. Those exploiting the land and its natural resources are being driven by demands for materialistic goods. They, and their customers, can be expected to resist any efforts to limit new initiatives or to return land back to a less developed state. Changes in demand can only come as a result of the lifestyle changes mentioned above.
Raising the well being of the poorest to reasonable levels requires international effort and cooperation. Those in more developed areas fear that raising others can only be at their expense. In some measure this is true; for example, the rising demand for steel in China is effecting the cost for every other country. The objections can only be overcome if ways are found to illustrate that the direct economic impact on the wealthy will have indirect benefits that will exceed the perceived costs.
Back to General Obstacles to Implementation of Goals
Back to Goals for 21st Century
On to Implementation of Goals for 21st Century
Click here to see all my essays in context.
If you have any comments you would like to add email me at
robert.feinman@gmail.com
Copyright © 2005 Robert D Feinman
Feel free to use the ideas, but the words are mine.