Do some people need a managerial/welfare state?

[ribozyme]

I brought this up in another thread by I want to make a separate topic.

I count myself as an advocate of “managerial liberalism” as opposed to classical liberalism. Both types of liberalism are informed by utilitarianism concerns. The latter believes that people will generally be better off with little interference; the former believes that sometimes one needs to intervene in other people’s lives in order to reduce their suffering so they can live comfortably. Managerial intervention will be restricted to the domain of social programs (financed through wealth redistribution) designed to take care of the less fortunate, and should not result in vast pogroms against other people. Other than funding the social programs, there will be few infringements on the concepts of liberty and freedom.

The reason I advocate a managerial state is because I believe that many people are too incompetent to acquire a job that gives them access to health care and offers them financial security. Furthermore, I do not believe that people will donate enough money to charities to take care of the unfortunate. That is why I believe the managerial/welfare state will help the material conditions of the less fortunate.

Regarding the competence of other people, the conservative Charles Murray forces me to doubt the potential of a fraction of the population:

Now suppose the boy sitting behind her is getting a D, but his IQ is a bit below 100, at the 49th percentile.

We can hope to raise his grade. But teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the parts of speech will not open up new vistas for him. **It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity, any more than it is within my power to follow a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics. In both cases, the problem is not that we have not been taught enough, but that we are not smart enough. **

Now take the girl sitting across the aisle who is getting an F. She is at the 20th percentile of intelligence, which means she has an IQ of 88. If the grading is honest, it may not be possible to do more than give her an E for effort. Even if she is taught to read every bit as well as her intelligence permits, she still will be able to comprehend only simple written material. It is a good thing that she becomes functionally literate, and it will have an effect on the range of jobs she can hold.** But still she will be confined to jobs that require minimal reading skills. She is just not smart enough to do more than that.**

How about raising intelligence? It would be nice if we knew how, but we do not. It has been shown that some intensive interventions temporarily raise IQ scores by amounts ranging up to seven or eight points. Investigated psychometrically, these increases are a mix of test effects and increases in the underlying general factor of intellectual ability–“g.”

opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531

I suppose a welfare state is the best option for increasing the financial security of people such as the aforementioned girl. I doubt such a person will have many attractive options in the labor market for jobs that provide health care and financial security.

 

[Tonks40]

If we take the definitions of intelligence as suggested by Mr. Murray as you quoted, then it appears that we’re unfairly determining parameters that gauge the level of intelligence in some people. IOW, there are too many factors that determine what a person’s ability is to gain or retain intelligence.

I admit I have my own bias here. When my husband was in school, he had great difficulties. Administrators predicted that he would not finish high school, let alone attend post-secondary education; in 8th grade, he was tested to have a reading level of a 2nd grader. With many years of remedial language classes, he eventually graduated at an 8th grade level of reading. Yet, he was an active participant in many regional and national science fairs, and he was considered at the college level for math and science. He owned a successful janitorial business at the age of 15, and sold it at 18. He did obtain a culinary arts degree (his father wanted him to get a degree in geophysics because he saw his potential).

Measuring a single parameter of intelligence does not, IMHO, justify the need for a government or state to enable people. It would just tempt more people to become lazier.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Hi there ribo,

What do you think of 2 Thessalonians 3:10? Seemed to work for thousands of years hasn’t it?

Suffering is part of life my friend. That doesn’t mean the “government” has a right to babysit me.

 

[ribozyme]

Hi there ribo,

What do you think of 2 Thessalonians 3:10? Seemed to work for thousands of years hasn’t it?

Suffering is part of life my friend. That doesn’t mean the “government” has a right to babysit me.

So much for the “God is love” nonsense, since he tolerates much suffering in this world.

And I do not understand why would some people want to abolish abortion, yet have little concern whether or not that fetus will receive health care or live in a nice environment after when it is born. What is the point of allowing a fetus to be born if its life will be characterized by lots of suffering? I only advocate a welfare state to relieve suffering, and I believe that is more compassionate the alleged love of the Christian God.

 

[rlg94086]

I brought this up in another thread by I want to make a separate topic.

I count myself as an advocate of “managerial liberalism” as opposed to classical liberalism. Both types of liberalism are informed by utilitarianism concerns. The latter believes that people will generally be better off with little interference; the former believes that sometimes one needs to intervene in other people’s lives in order to reduce their suffering so they can live comfortably. Managerial intervention will be restricted to the domain of social programs (financed through wealth redistribution) designed to take care of the less fortunate, and should not result in vast pogroms against other people. Other than funding the social programs, there will be few infringements on the concepts of liberty and freedom.

No argument…since you used the word “sometimes.” “Sometimes,” the government can intervene. The problem with most of the proposals that you support is that they are intervening all of the time.

Ribozyme:

The reason I advocate a managerial state is because I believe that** many people are too incompetent to acquire a job** that gives them access to health care and offers them financial security. Furthermore, I do not believe that people will donate enough money to charities to take care of the unfortunate. That is why I believe the managerial/welfare state will help the material conditions of the less fortunate.

And, that is why your sensibilities are misguided. Where is the evidence for “many?” Also, who doesn’t have “access to health care?” How you pay for it is another matter, but I think it is silly when people talk about others “not having access to healthcare.”

Ribozyme:

I suppose a welfare state is the best option for increasing the financial security of people such as the aforementioned girl. I doubt such a person will have many attractive options in the labor market for jobs that provide health care and financial security.

Almost everyone agrees we should have programs for the few (compared to the population as a whole) that are incapable of working a job due to mental or physical impairments. That doesn’t mean that we have, for example, nationalized healthcare for everyone.

 

[ribozyme]

And, that is why your sensibilities are misguided. Where is the evidence for “many?” Also, who doesn’t have “access to health care?” How you pay for it is another matter, but I think it is silly when people talk about others “not having access to healthcare.”

Almost everyone agrees we should have programs for the few (compared to the population as a whole) that are incapable of working a job due to mental or physical impairments. That doesn’t mean that we have, for example, nationalized healthcare for everyone.

Let’s say for the definition for “many” to be people below the 20th percentile. For example:

Now take the girl sitting across the aisle who is getting an F. She is at the 20th percentile of intelligence, which means she has an IQ of 88. If the grading is honest, it may not be possible to do more than give her an E for effort. Even if she is taught to read every bit as well as her intelligence permits, she still will be able to comprehend only simple written material. It is a good thing that she becomes functionally literate, and it will have an effect on the range of jobs she can hold. But still she will be confined to jobs that require minimal reading skills. She is just not smart enough to do more than that.

Do you think that (putative) person will get a good job?

 

[rlg94086]

Let’s say for the definition for “many” to be people below the 20th percentile. For example:

Do you think that (putative) person will get a good job?

Define “good.” She can get a job. As the author you quoted said, the range of jobs would be limited. I think she would have a chance as a government bureaucrat or in a liberal thinktank.

 

[ribozyme]

Define “good.” She can get a job. As the author you quoted said, the range of jobs would be limited. I think she would have a chance as a government bureaucrat or in a liberal thinktank.

In a previous post:

“jobs that provide health care and financial security.” Do you have evidence that people who work in think tanks lack intelligence?

 

[rlg94086]

In a previous post:

“jobs that provide health care and financial security.”

I’ve never had a job that provided “health care.” I usually have to go to a medical clinic or doctor for that. And, please define “financial security.”

ribozyme:

Do you have evidence that people who work in think tanks lack intelligence?

Yes, they constantly provide such evidence in written form.

 

[Tonks40]

In a previous post:

“jobs that provide health care and financial security.” Do you have evidence that people who work in think tanks lack intelligence?

This is still a very subjective definition. What’s defined as “good” for some maybe too good or not good enough for others.

Your world view is still very limited (yes, I’m pulling the “age-card” here.) You have yet to consider other factors that may contribute to a person ability or inability (in addition to intelligence) to support themselves.

 

[estesbob]

In a previous post:

“jobs that provide health care and financial security.” Do you have evidence that people who work in think tanks lack intelligence?

People who work in Liberal think tanks may very well have high intelligence. they just have a total lack of common sense-as do most people who think all knowldge comes from reading books, etc.

 

[Leebo]

While I admire your ambition, this is not a practical idea, in fact it is the very reason Govt intervention fails.

So you are going to have a few “experts” who are going to distribute wealth to those in need.

How are you going to decide who your experts are going to be?

 

[ribozyme]

While I admire your ambition, this is not a practical idea, in fact it is the very reason Govt intervention fails.

So you are going to have a few “experts” who are going to distribute wealth to those in need.

How are you going to decide who your experts are going to be?

When I think of people who will administer the managerial state, I am not thinking of people such as Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. I am thinking of people such as Robert Reich, Robert Greenstein, Lawrence Mishel, Jason Furman, and Jared Bernstein etc. Unlike Reid and Pelosi, they do not have any direct power or votes, but they can wield plenty of influence.

 

[estesbob]

When I think of people who will administer the managerial state, I am not thinking of people such as Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. I am thinking of people such as Robert Reich, Robert Greenstein, Lawrence Mishel, Jason Furman, and Jared Bernstein etc. Unlike Reid and Pelosi, they do not have any direct power or votes, but they can wield plenty of influence.

And whom appoints the elite who will rule us?

Personaly I would rather be ruled by 3 people picked randomly out of the phone book than any of the three you mention above.

 

[deb1]

Let’s say for the definition for “many” to be people below the 20th percentile. For example:

Do you think that (putative) person will get a good job?

I have known a mentally handicapped woman for years who has been able to work in a school cafeteria. She lived with her parents until recently when she married another mentally handicapped man. I am not certain if she gets any goverment or family aid to help her with bills. But she is much more independent then one would suppose.

I also know a mentally handicapped man who lived in some sort of group home. He had his own apartment but there was some oversight by a woman who owned the buildings. I know that he read all right and worked in a restaurant.

They were both sweet people and very proud to be earning their own money. So, I am not certain how you could define a ‘good’ job. In their view any job that helped them be independent, even if not to our level, was considered good.

 

[ribozyme]

And whom appoints the elite who will rule us?

Personaly I would rather be ruled by 3 people picked randomly out of the phone book than any of the three you mention above.

Those people do not rule anything directly, but they “never touch anything directly. [They] only influence. Suggest. Insinuate.”

To quote from Deus Ex .

Why don’t you trust those people? Do you even know anything about their work? Regarding Robert Greenstein, here is a video about his think tank:

cbpp.org/video.htm

 

[rlg94086]

And whom appoints the elite who will rule us?

Personaly I would rather be ruled by 3 people picked randomly out of the phone book than any of the three you mention above.

Exactly. I would prefer the Three Stooges before any three of the people Ribozyme mentioned (with Shemp though…not Curly…Shemp was much “smarter”). I would even take the Seven Dwarfs instead of the seven people Ribozyme mentioned.

 

[ribozyme]

Exactly. I would prefer the Three Stooges before the three Ribozyme mentioned (with Shemp though…not Curly…Shemp was much “smarter”).

I mentioned seven people in that post: two politicians and five wonks.

 

[Tonks40]

Exactly. I would prefer the Three Stooges before the three Ribozyme mentioned (with Shemp though…not Curly…Shemp was much “smarter”).

Better yet…Matthew, Luke & John.

 

[rlg94086]

I have known a mentally handicapped woman for years who has been able to work in a school cafeteria. She lived with her parents until recently when she married another mentally handicapped man. I am not certain if she gets any goverment or family aid to help her with bills. But she is much more independent then one would suppose.

I also know a mentally handicapped man who lived in some sort of group home. He had his own apartment but there was some oversight by a woman who owned the buildings. I know that he read all right and worked in a restaurant.

They were both sweet people and very proud to be earning their own money. So, I am not certain how you could define a** ‘good’ job**. In their view any job that helped them be independent, even if not to our level, was considered good.

Excellent example! That’s exactly why I asked Ribozyme to provide definitions. If someone can get a job that pays enough for a modest apartment (or even a room rental in someone’s home), food to eat, etc., then that is a “good job” in my books.