Preface
To Opposethe WelfareStateIs to Be a Bigot?
I typethesewordsduringa phasein whichthe UnitedStatesand Europefacea fiscal
crisis.Followingdecadesof spendingtax moneyto supportwelfareprogramsnot merely
for the poorbut alsofor the middleclass,the USAand Europefindthemselvesconfront-
ing the greatlikelihoodthattheirwelfaresystemscannotbe sustainedindefinitely.Some
commentatorsof the free-marketpersuasion,recognizingthe dangersof nationalgovern-
mentsdiggingthemselvesdeepintodebtthroughtheirwelfareprograms,advisethat
thesegovernmentsexercisegreaterfiscaldiscipline,reducingtheirspendingandallow-
ing for theireconomiesto recoverand prosperthrougheconomicderegulationand liber-
alization.Suchfree-marketsuggestionscomefroma soundbasis,but the partisansof the
entrenchedwelfare-statemechanismsstubbornlydenythe needto abolishor so muchas
shrinkthe pervasiveinfluenceof thesewelfaresystems.In responseto anycall for the
freeingof enterpriseanddisempowermentof the welfarestate,the partisansof the wel-
farestatehowlthatany proposalto discontinuewelfarepayments—howevergradually
theyare phasedout—amountsto a genuflectionto the discrediteddoctrinesof social
Darwinism.
SocialDarwinism,we are told,is a doctrinethatright-wingbigotsinventedin the
nineteenthcentury.In this age,CharlesDarwinlaid forthhis theoryof naturalselection,
pointingout thatvariousorganismsof the samespeciescompetedwithone anotherfor
limitedresourcesin an effortto survive.On accountof mutations,someindividualorgan-
ismsdevelopedtraitsunlikethoseof othermembersof the samespecies.Individuals
possessingthe traitsthatprovedmostadvantageousin adaptingto the environment
wouldsurviveand procreate.To subsequentgenerations,thesesurvivorswouldtransmit
the verysametraitsthat had helpedthemadaptand flourish.Conversely,the competitors
of the samespeciespossessingthe lessadvantageouspropertieswouldbe unableto
survivelongenoughto reproduce.Theywouldperishand therebyproveunableto trans-
mit theirdisadvantageoustraitsto othergenerations.
Here,the advocatesof the welfarestate—whichI alsocall theregulatory-entitlement
state—proclaimthat nineteenth-centurysocialDarwinistssoughtinappropriatelyto apply
Darwin’s theoryto the studyof humansociety,particularlyin the areaof government
policiespertainingto politicaleconomy.Thewelfarestate’s partisanschargethatthe
socialDarwinists,mostprominently GreatBritain’s HerbertSpencer andthe USA’s
WilliamGrahamSumner,positeda theoryto this effect:
Competitionin the free-marketcapitalisteconomyrecreatesthe competitionin the junglethat
Darwindescribed,as well it should.Shouldsomeoneascendfrompenuryto wealthand prestigein
the marketeconomy,it is on accountof that personpossessingsuperiorbiologicaltraits.Sucha
personis obligatedto havechildren,in whomthosesamesuperiorbiologicaltraitsshallmanifest.
Contrariwise,if someoneremainsin penuryher entirelife, her failureto ascendto wealthis to be
attributedto her possessinglow-qualityinborntraits.The best outcomeis for sucha low-quality
personto die in the absenceof bearingany children,for any childrenshe raisesshalllikelyinherit
her inferiorbiologicaltraitsand continueto retardthe progressof the humanrace.As private
charityand tax-fundedwelfareenablethe inferiorpoorto surviveand supporttheirchildren,
ix