The freedom to be idle
This quote got me thinking:
The reason welfare is bad is not because it costs too much, nor because it “undermines the work ethic,” but because it is intrinsically at odds with the way human beings come to live satisfying lives.
The comments it generated got me thinking even more. Guy Herbert on why some people don’t bother getting jobs:
[I]t could also be absence of hope, or that getting a poorly paid job makes them worse off (as is often the case in the UK system), or that available jobs are so hateful that the marginal gain does not compensate, or that they prefer idleness. I can sympathise with people who take advantage of the system when it is there, and which almost nobody says is wrong.
I don’t think it is wicked to be idle. I think it is ultimately wrong to be idle at someone else’s expense.
… Just as it is wrong to be busy at somone else’s expense. The “career doley” is less offensive than the career quangocrat, the difference being rather more than the ratio of their income. The welfare-beggar only takes what is given to him; the regulator will leave footprints on your forehead as he works to expand his role.
Midwesterner:
What Murray is saying is what researchers of humans and animals have known for ages. Happiness relies on a perceived ability to control your environment.
Welfare separates cause from effect, and removes any perception of ability to control their environments. If anything, recipients become puppets getting their strings yanked by sometimes malicious puppeteers.
I am in 100 per cent agreement with the preceding two remarks. Please, be idle if you want. Idleness can take very noble forms, if you forgo paying work to graft for charity, create value for your community, or otherwise help others (this is, of course, not real idleness but mere joblessness. That is not how it is looked upon by most people, sadly.). But honestly, I could not care less if you want to do nothing but sit on the couch, eat Cheetos, and drink Slurpees. Just don’t rob me, or anyone else, to finance your lifestyle choice.
Filed under: Life
Hmm. It’s a tricky one this: I know many smart Norwegians who abhor the welfare state, its mentality and all that is stands for, yet feel quite at ease being on the dole feeling they’ve more than paid for it. They feel they’ve unrightfully paid such massive amounts of tax that they have the right to get something back.
For me it’s a pride issue, so I would do anything to avoid that. Besides, as you refer to: there’s something about being in control of your environment - I can’t imagine how anybody willingly would put themseles at the mercy of a system which is more than capable of removing your ‘pay’ with a penstroke or a small slip-up. A slip-up which may ruin your financial credibility but be of no concern to the bureaucrats. And if you do manage to get thru to them, they will put on that stoic voice and tell you how we live in the best of all possible worlds, how such minor issues must be accepted as long as the overall system works. That minor issue may have ruined your life, but hey, you are not so selfish that you object to making a sacrifice or two to the greater good, are you?
More importantly, I think there are an infinite number of ways to define “living a satisfying life.” Some people (and this is difficult to believe, I know), might take a look at Jackie’s live and question how it could possibly be satisfying.
Why would that be difficult to believe?
Surely most people struggle themselves with the question of whether their own lives are satisfying.