Change We Can Believe In

The Ethics of Welfare Prostitution

Five days ago, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argued in the Telegraph that the West is facing fiscal ruin. He may or may not be right--this time round. But, if not, in the long run he will be on the money. The collapse of Western governments and economies will come from the relentless rise of state entitlements, as property is taken from some citizens and distributed to others.

In the end, the demand for entitlements will outstrip the ability of the government to supply, due to diminishing wealth and economic growth. The final result will likely be a complete meltdown of financial markets, catastrophic depression, political instability, and probably a collapse of law and order.

The virulence of the West's disease can also be seen in New Zealand. Unbelief cannot deal with the problem, it can only throw petrol on to the fire. At root is the notion of entitlement, based on a universally held belief in demand human rights. Athens has now become enslaved to the belief that there is a behemoth of goods and services to which all citizens are entitled. The state must intervene to ensure that citizens get their entitlements.

These entitlements (healthcare, the dole, the Domestic Purposes Benefit, New Zealand Superannuation, government funded education, etc) are due all citizens because Athens philosophically and religiously believes in demand rights. There are certain things (goods and services) which individual human beings have a right to have--and the right is of a demand type: that is, they can demand that others provide these things for them. This, in turn, legitimises the state expropriating the property of citizens through the taxation system to meet the demand rights entitlements of other citizens. Failure to provide these demand rights entitlements is framed as injustice.

Even the right wing in New Zealand, let alone the "centre" political parties, all agree that demand rights exist. The only debate amongst Unbelief is the level and extent of the entitlements. An example is Lindsay Mitchell's latest piece on Maori welfare. She lays down her views on state welfare per se:

There exists an extreme view that the state has no role at all in welfare provision. It is not one I share. Nevertheless, the state should limit its involvement to that of providing a safety net of last resort. Self and family responsibility must come first. Middle class welfare – the provision of cash or services to those who can afford to meet their own needs – must be avoided. (Emphasis, ours)

David Farrar of Kiwiblog agrees:

I broadly agree with that proposition. Welfare should be targeted at those in genuine need. It should not be dished out so families can buy a nicer ipod.

Now, Mitchell being an Act party member would be to the right of Farrar who identifies himself as a centre-right liberal. But both operate within the same paradigm of entitlements and demand rights: the only debate is over amount or extent. When they debate with the Left it is over the amount and quantum of demand rights, not their existence.

It is like the woman who was asked whether she would prostitute herself for a thousand dollars. She declined. But when asked whether she would spend the night with a man for ten million dollars, she affirmed that she would. So, said, her interlocutor, we have established that you are a prostitute--we are only debating the price.

The problem is that demand rights are fundamentally unethical and immoral--whether they are demands for a "safety net of last resort" or asserting an entitlement to the latest ipod. Demand rights necessarily involve state enforced expropriation and theft of property from one group of citizens to another. Regardless of how much or "little" is taken, it is always theft.

Modern western democracies are locked in to this perverse ideology. They cannot turn away from it, any more than they can turn away from their Unbelief. For in the West man has become divine and can therefore assert demand rights at will. And, of course, demand rights have an inevitable dynamic of growing and expanding. If you are a prostitute and someone offers you twenty million instead of ten, you go with that person. All politicians and political aspirants--we are bold to say without exception--are compelled to support at least the current entitlements. Yet the road to political power is always paved with promises of expanding demand rights and more entitlements. As soon as an entitlement is asserted and granted, it cannot be revoked without widespread social disturbance and cries of injustice.

In the end the whole immoral, unethical and tawdry system will collapse in upon itself. It may happen in this current crisis--but if not, it will eventually transpire.

Our view is that it is impossible to change this system. It requires a rejection of secular humanism, which lies at the heart of Unbelief. What, then, can Jerusalem do? A great deal. But the revolution needs to be in our hearts, in our families, and in our Christian communities (churches, schools, welfare associations, and so forth.) In a nutshell, Christians need to learn to live in manner which eschews all demand rights and entitlements in principle, then progressively institutionalise that rejection in practice. This will not happen quickly. But it must happen if we are to have reformation in our nation.

Douglas Wilson in Moscow, Idaho has been publishing a series of pieces on this very matter for his audience in the United States. We will progressively reproduce them in Contra Celsum. While he is addressing the issues facing Christians in the United States, it is immediately apparent that we have the same issues in this country.

Working for the reformation of Christendom is our duty. It is also our great joy. The work needs to be done on many fronts. Rejecting the false religion of demand rights, and adopting biblical habits and working toward building strong independent and self-reliant Christian communities is a vital part of the war.

We promise all our readers that reading Wilson on these matters will be an uncomfortable experience--although his irenic spirit and great sense of humour makes the medicine go down more easily.