As regular readers know, I don’t like the war on drugs, and I don’t like the welfare system. Both seem intractably embedded in our national psyche, though, and getting rid of either is politically impossible. All attempts at reform are, it seems, doomed to perpetual failure.
What worries me is the way dislike of the welfare system (and of welfare recipients) is used as a way of drumming up public support for the war on drugs. People who are opposed to welfare are often emotional and angry about it, and this tends to make them form angry associations between welfare and drugs, which makes them far less sympathetic to drug users, and far more inclined to support the war on drugs — almost as if they believe the welfare classes are more “deserving” of jail time and SWAT Teams than people who manage to work for a living and buy their own drugs. This illogical thinking is of course fueled by demagogic politicians and pundits for their own ends.
A classic example is the latest bipartisan ploy of mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants. It strikes me that this is a wonderful foot in the door for expanding mandatory drug testing to include almost everyone, because the idea is that if you receive government benefits, you should be tested for drugs. But what is a government benefit? Social security? Medicare? How about Obamacare? Tax credits? Tax deductions? Student loans? A license to drive? A contractor’s license?
If we factor in America’s love of egalitarianism across the political spectrum, “fairness” will ultimately demand that everyone should be tested. So mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients is a perfect foot in the door for Big Brother.
The latest wrinkle in the debate is being framed along utilitarian lines — whether there is any economic benefit to Welfare drug tests:
MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.
A lot of statistics are presented, and as Tom Maguire shows, they are highly questionable because the Times and the ACLU conceal the number of applicants who walked away from testing entirely. But aside from whether drug testing saves the taxpayers money, there’s the issue of whether it helps those with drug problems.
…Why couldn’t an aid recipient wear with pride the notion that he/she cleaned up for the kids?
And if drug testing might deter strugging individuals, it might also motivate them to clean up their act.
I think it is fair to assume that drug testing might help some of the people on welfare clean up their act. But isn’t that also an argument for drug testing everyone? Why shouldn’t all Americans be made to clean up their act? Why single out the welfare class and ignore the pot-smoking middle class, the pill-popping businessmen, and oxycodone addicts in high places positions of responsibility?
Wouldn’t it be more fair to test everyone?
Like I was just saying….
(It would be misleading to blame Obama, though, because it is quite plain that equal opportunity tyranny is the goal of both parties.)
Comments
8 responses to “Social engineering begets social engineering”
Here is today’s PSA:
WOD = Tyranny
Today’s PSA was bought to you by Truth, Liberty, and Morality.
If I have to suffer the indignity of having to pee in a bottle to earn a living; welfare recipients should do no less to have a living handed to them.
Seems fair to me. Tyranny begets itself. We can’t all be George Schultz.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/06/25/drug-testing-mps-and-the-shultz-defence/
Eric,
I greatly sympathize with your fear of pernicious prospect of universal mandatory drug testing. But on the other hand, I am also disposed to require quite much of people who are on welfare–and even those who may be on other forms of government assistance, so the drug-testing requirement doesn’t rankle me as much as it might.
You see, in my view, the people who are on the various types of government assistance–whether it be welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, you name it–are in effect admitting that they can’t make it on their own. They are admitting that they require the support (i.e. the charity) of others to survive. And of course, if somebody else is supporting you (rather than you supporting yourself), then that person is perfectly within their rights to dictate the terms of their support. For example, I could offer to support someone to the tune of $1.5 million per year for life, with the condition that they must agree to cut off their left hand and give it to me. (Most people would never agree to this, of course, but I daresay some would.) If they are not willing to lose their left hands, then they are of course free to reject my offer. But for them to say it’s not fair that I require their left hand of them is irrelevant–it’s my money, and (ideally) I can offer it under whatever conditions I might choose. For their part, they also have the choice to accept or reject my offer. If they choose to reject it, they might discover that, if they keep looking, they might find someone who can give them $20,000 per year, but let them keep both their hands. (As an example, I used to get an “allowance” of sorts from my parents every month while I was in college. However when I told them that I wanted to go on a choir trip to Europe, they told me I couldn’t. I said I was 22 years old, and I sure as hell could if I wanted to. They threatened to stop supporting me, and I said, “Go right ahead.” So I went, and they stopped sending checks. It was their money, and it was my choice.)
Of course, in the modern situation, the “safety net” of government charity is no longer a last resort for a miniscule portion of the population, but rather the infamous “safety hammock,” in which the vast majority of our citizens will eventually come to rest. There is hardly a US citizen out there today who will not receive some sort of government handout in one way or another. Even my dad, who turned 65 on his last birthday, and who is (if anything) more conservative than me, is enrolled in Medicare. Additionally, in the interests of “fairness” and “equality,” the government requires very little from the recipients of government support. That’s the crux of the matter–that’s where your fear that EVERYONE will be required to be tested for drugs becomes a horrifying reality. If there were multiple avenues of charity between which people could reasonably choose, then it makes perfect sense for those offering the charity to dictate exactly what strings are attached. However, since the government has ensured that it is pretty much the only game in town if you need charity (largely by making it easy to get and easy to maintain, and by making it difficult or impossible to do without), the fear that drug testing will be mandatory for everyone is much more credible.
I guess I’m just saying that I agree the drug-testing requirement could be a slippery slope under the current arrangement, where nearly everyone will be taking government handouts in one form or another, and will therefore be subject to government requirements in that regard. However, if we were to somehow reduce or eliminate government-issued entitlements to the point where people’s retirements would be funded by their own retirement funds, and their medical care would be provided by their own medical care choices, and private charitable organizations were the primary means of emergency support for those in need, and people could reasonably choose whether or not to take government support, then having a requirement for drug testing in order to receive government handouts is much less problematic to me.
If I have to suffer the indignity of having to pee in a bottle to earn a living; welfare recipients should do no less to have a living handed to them.
So your answer to Big Brother is Bigger Brother. Brilliant. Fookin brilliant. The NWO thanks you for your assistance.
Eric,
I posted a link to this at JOM. With a few added comments.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/drug-testing-and-public-assistance-in-florida.html
John S.,
Here is the comment I made at JOM. Complete except for the link back to here. It applies to you:
OK. You drive drug users off welfare. Excellent!
Now of course such people will be unable to get jobs as well. Well what will they do? What they have to do. Turn to a life of crime. And Drug Selling is easy to get into. No barriers to entry or exit (like a real job market – not a government controlled one).
And because people on welfare don’t need a lot it will drive the price of drugs down. Further.
And on top of that you are enabling the government to develop even more SWAT teams and enforcers. What happens when they turn those forces on you? Fools.
And for all those Conservatives who love the UN [/sarc], the UN has a large Drug Prohibition Division. They have a plan to suit every political persuasion.
Any thing you do to expand government will eventually be used against you. Fools.
And please note: the most problematic drug in our culture today is alcohol. Nothing will be done about that.
And if the welfare people switch from pot to alcohol? Traffic fatalities will go up. Innocents will get killed.
I’m sorry, I guess my post was a bit too long to clearly illuminate my point. My argument is for SMALLER government, by way of fewer entitlements, including forced charity (welfare). I think it would be better for all parties involved if charity were mostly available through private sources, rather than through the government. Fewer entitlements = lower spending = lower tax burden = smaller government. (I also think people would work harder to get off of welfare if they understood it to be charity that they’re receiving through someone else’s benevolence. Not good for the ego, but maybe good for a kick in the pants to become self-supporting.)
I guess my point about the drug testing is that if someone else is taking my money instead of earning her own, then I should get to tell her what she can or can’t do with it. If she doesn’t like that condition, she doesn’t have to take the money.